Can you be taught to write?

[Edward G]

I know you can be taught the mechanics, such as grammar, punctuation, usage, vocabulary. I know you can be taught the general techniques of fiction, but after that, aren't we all on our own?

It's something I read by CeeCee in another post about betas and their potential affect on authorial voice. If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

Ultimately, isn't a writer a writer because of their unique voice? Even if an author chooses to write in completely passive voice, if they think that's how their original story should read, isn't that how the story actually should read?

George Orwell uses long paragraphs and sentences, he often uses dramatic summary over "showing" his story scenes. He is often didactic and uses his characters to make speeches. In a creative writing class, none of this would be acceptable, but how can anyone say it's wrong? If G.O. Invented the story, 1984, then the exact words he uses to tell it are the words that are supposed to be there, just as they are presented. Isn't this so?

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

(This dilema hit me today as I rode my motorcycle over 400 miles. My wife drives the RV, I follow behind on the motorcycle. We used to put the motorcycle in the truck bed, but we bought a bigger bike and it doesn't really fit well. Besides, I frankly like the long rides. And it gives her a break from me, I'm sure.)

[HourglassMemory]

Why be 'taught' when you can learn by your yourself?
I was 'taught' by hundreds of people. Both directly(people directly giving me advice) and indirectly(Reading books and famous authors giving interviews, for example).
At least that's how it goes for me.

I once started writing my book, and I knew nothing about writing. It was my first book ever. It was my fisrt ever attempt at writing sometihng like I saw on the shelves. I didn't do any research about "how to write a book" or anything"
And a few months later I went to see if the whole structure of the story was there. Like... if there was conflict and if I started the story where the problem started. And all those little characteristics people constantly talk about.
My story fit the standarts pretty well, and I didn't "study" for it.

The way it was written was crap, but I'm WAY better now.
Just write and have fun!:D

[Moon Daughter]

I don't think we can be taught certain things, like our voices. I think our voice can be influenced though. As for being taught how to write, I'd say it's essentially about the grammar, proper syntax, proper word usage, etc. But I don't think a person can be taught creativity really, which really makes ones story. I think a person can only be taught so much because if we're taught strictly one way to write, then wouldn't our stories be similar? And I don't mean plot-wise, but the way it reads and it would probably become more predictable.

And now I've lost my train of thought...

[Edward G]

I don't think we can be taught certain things, like our voices. I think our voice can be influenced though. As for being taught how to write, I'd say it's essentially about the grammar, proper syntax, proper word usage, etc. But I don't think a person can be taught creativity really, which really makes ones story. I think a person can only be taught so much because if we're taught strictly one way to write, then wouldn't our stories be similar? And I don't mean plot-wise, but the way it reads and it would probably become more predictable.

And now I've lost my train of thought...


Yes, all the writing would sound the same, like newspaper news articles. I guess I'm concerned mostly with if it's even possible to critique an original story. If it's original, and if the writer feels it is finished, isn't it perfect?

Perhaps one has to decide if a story is personally original or if the story exists for anyone to find and write on a first come-first serve basis. If a story could potentially belong to anyone, then it can be critiqued and perfected by mass reviews. If it's just between God and the writer, then who could ever add or subtract from it? Even the writer, him or herself: if they know they've taken it as far as they can, even they should not be allowed to change it. Right? No?

[James D. Macdonald]

Can you be taught to write?

Yes.

Next question?

[Pup]

It's something I read by CeeCee in another post about betas and their potential affect on authorial voice. If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

Depends. Is the writing the story, or is our story always there, behind the writing?

The most useful thing I find is giving a section of a WIP to someone to read, and seeing if it produces the effect I wanted.

Say I introduce a new character with a couple sentences of description and dialog, and I want the reader to distrust him, even though he seems nice. I'll ask, what did you think of him?

If the answer is, "seemed like a nice guy," then the writing isn't accomplishing what the story requires. Changing the writing based on the reader's comment actually brings forth the story better.

If the answer is, "I dunno, I wouldn't trust him," then the writing and the story are in synch.

I'll ask things like, did the pace seem fast enough? Was it always clear who was talking in that four-way conversation? Who were you rooting for in that scene? Did you wish there was more detail or could you picture it well enough? Could you tell why she wanted to do that? Did his reaction seem believable?

Any of those, I'll change the writing to bring out the story better.

The kind of comments I ignore are negative comments about what I was trying to accomplish, for better or worse. I figure that's where my own personal style and choice come in. Things like... "I didn't like the setting," or "that's too icky" or "I don't think you should take it that direction."

Changing the writing based on opinions like "too much passive voice" or "too wordy" does have more direct impact on a writer's style. But really, opinions like that are often attempts to discuss how to reach a goal, skipping past the more important point that the goal hasn't been reached, for whatever reason.

For example, if you're trying to make the readers feel like they're right beside the MC, seeing what he sees, following him through a fast-paced scene, and your readers say you've accomplished that, it doesn't really matter if you've used lots of adjectives, adverbs and passive verbs.

If readers say they were bored and the pace was slow, then wordiness and passive voice might be the cause. It might be something else. How you decide to solve the problem, to get the words to accomplish what you want them to accomplish, is, in my opinion, how you keep your own voice, while still listening to readers' input.

[narnia]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76102

[andrewhollinger]

If it's original, and if the writer feels it is finished, isn't it perfect?

Of course it isn't perfect.

But that's how we learn. You read a book and say, "This was horrible. I will never write a story like this." Lesson learned.

I'm of the opinion that anyone can learn to write, inasmuch as anyone can learn math or an instrument. Some people, however, come by it naturally. Those people become (maybe) professional writers. My point is that we should all be able to construct a well-crafted and effective note, letter, essay, whatever. Those of us who try to be professionals may not learn much in the way of writing, but a good mentor or writers' workshop, or critic's circle should help a writer develop his or her creative process.

[tjwriter]

I know you can be taught the mechanics, such as grammar, punctuation, usage, vocabulary. I know you can be taught the general techniques of fiction, but after that, aren't we all on our own?

It's something I read by CeeCee in another post about betas and their potential affect on authorial voice. If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

The thing about feedback and the individual ideas of the writer is that the writer can choose whether or not the feedback is valuable. Most often the goal of a beta is someone who can spot the plot hole you left, or tell you when a passage is confusing and not clear. But whether you want follow any advice is ultimately your choice, regardless of the response. If you person tells you they don't like something, it's an opinion, but if seven people are all commenting on a certain passage that is hard to look at, it might be worth taking a second look.

Ultimately, isn't a writer a writer because of their unique voice? Even if an author chooses to write in completely passive voice, if they think that's how their original story should read, isn't that how the story actually should read?

George Orwell uses long paragraphs and sentences, he often uses dramatic summary over "showing" his story scenes. He is often didactic and uses his characters to make speeches. In a creative writing class, none of this would be acceptable, but how can anyone say it's wrong? If G.O. Invented the story, 1984, then the exact words he uses to tell it are the words that are supposed to be there, just as they are presented. Isn't this so?

The thing is, it's not changing the voice if a beta points out that Bob has red hair in Chapter 2, but in Chapter 17 runs his fingers through his black hair, and there's no mention of coloring it. The beta is not there to tell you how to write it.

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

(This dilema hit me today as I rode my motorcycle over 400 miles. My wife drives the RV, I follow behind on the motorcycle. We used to put the motorcycle in the truck bed, but we bought a bigger bike and it doesn't really fit well. Besides, I frankly like the long rides. And it gives her a break from me, I'm sure.)

I don't think that any story is perfect. People make mistakes. After staring at something so long, it's hard to catch some of the things fresh eyes will see. A beta shouldn't be telling how to use your voice, only telling you what issues they see. Even then, you may think it's a nonissue.

To answer the question of the thread, I believe that writers can learn the methods of good storytelling by reading and writing. Practice helps.

[tjwriter]

Index to Learn Writing with Uncle Jim (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8754) - which is a sticky at the top, if you search the text on the page for beta, you will find several references to beta readers with some excellent advice. I know that Uncle Jim gave some excellent advice on betas, but my brain fails to recollect where.

[megan_d]

Seems to me that your advocating the idea that each word is precious and should not be changed, ever. And if memory serves, you're all about self publishing. Maybe there's a connected to be made here....

[ClaudiaGray]

I personally think there may be elements of writing that cannot be taught, but there are certainly many elements of writing that can be taught very well. And we're all certainly best off learning as much as we can to supplement whatever natural talent/inspiration we may have been given.

[Stijn Hommes]

What was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now is different. Orwell lived in another time where the way he wrote was actually a lot like the way people spoke. You can't use that as an example for current writing ideas.

[RLSMiller]

I think, as you said, you can be taught the mechanics behind writing. Just like singers can be taught proper breath control and the technical aspects to singing. But it takes more than that to be a professional writer, in my opinion.

If you're writing fiction, you need to have a good imagination. Not only that, but you have to discover your voice, and be able to inject your personality and perspective on life into your writing. Too often people try to imitate successful authors and that restricts their own voice from coming through. The technicalities and mechanics of writing are definitely important, but they are not the be all and end all. To succeed in the marketplace, you need a voice that is both distinguishable and appealing. Some people get away with high-concept plots told in a bland voice, but if you're going that way then I'd say you have to have a really amazing/controversial premise (e.g. the Da Vinci Code). Some genres, like thrillers and mysteries, emphasize plot over voice.

I think the key to being a good writer is to be aware of the constructs in writing, to acknowledge all the rules and technicalities, and to incorporate them in your own work as much as you can without stifling your voice. You do have to compromise to some extent, because the rules are there to make things easier to read. 1984 was written with an extensive use of passive voice, but that was a stylistic effect that matched very well with the story's theme of oppression and being powerless. It's an exception to the norm, and even so it bored me to death, although I acknowledge it's a very clever story and Orwell wrote it in a very clever and deliberate way.

A basic rule I learned when studying English was that you can argue and do whatever you like as long as you justify your reasons. If you're going to defy standard principles in modern fiction, make sure there's a good and clear reason for doing so. You have to know the rules to break them. You also have to remember that your particular voice/style might not be everybody's cup of tea, so don't be surprised if people don't "get" your work. It's such a subjective and individual thing, and certain styles of writing are simply more marketable than others.

[Chasing the Horizon]

Yes, anyone can learn to write, just like anyone can learn to play music, but some people will have an innate talent that makes them great writers, just like some people are born with the ability to become master musicians. Of course, talent doesn't keep you from having to learn and practice in order to become great. It just means you can go further if you work hard enough.

As for betas, I think they serve an important purpose. Until some other people read your writing, there's no way to know for sure if every scene is communicating the point you mean for it to. Since as the author you know what you mean, it's impossible to accurately judge this yourself. That's all I look for from betas, that the story I wanted to tell is what actually ended up on the page. I'm not interested in hearing critique on my style or the story itself, which is why my betas are all readers who don't write themselves. I break 'rules' right and left with my writing, and other writers seem incapable of ignoring this. My betas don't know these 'rules', so if they point something out I know it truly doesn't work.

Did Orwell use a lot of passive voice in 1984? If so, he must've done it very well, because I never noticed, and I've read that book several times. 1984 is the only 'classic' novel I've ever really enjoyed.

As for a story being 'perfect', I don't believe anything is ever perfect. The only way perhaps a story could be told perfectly would be if we could project it directly from our own heads into the mind of the reader. Writing is the bridge connecting our stories with the readers, but it's inherently imperfect and at its best can only communicate a story with a fraction of the splendor it would have if we could present it without that separation.

[IceCreamEmpress]

The emphasis on passive voice in 1984 was a particular stylistic choice which, as people have already pointed out, was meant to underscore the ways in which the dystopian society Orwell depicted strangled the capacity for direct action.

Also, it wasn't necessarily considered a successful choice at the time. Contemporary reviews of 1984 weren't all raves by any means.

For myself, I think the book succeeds on the basis of its ideas and characterizations, not on the basis of the stylistic choices. Orwell was no fan of passive voice in general, as he made amply clear in "Politics and the English Language."


Now, for a potentially tiresome rant about one of my pet hobby-horses:



What was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now is different. Orwell lived in another time where the way he wrote was actually a lot like the way people spoke.

George Orwell was born in 1903. My grandparents and great-aunts and great-uncles were all born around that time, and were from roughly the same economic and educational background as he (most from the US and Canada, admittedly, but some of my great-aunts and uncles by marriage were from the UK and Ireland).

None of them spoke the way George Orwell wrote. I've read transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, which were conducted by folks who were Orwell's contemporaries, and they didn't speak the way Orwell wrote, even in that very formal context.

Now, I'm referring to his authorial voice in his essays here. I do think that Orwell had a really good ear for how people spoke--the dialogue in 1984 is a good example of this, and I think some of the dialogue in Keep the Aspidistra Flying is very realistic as well.

But the only people I've ever heard speaking the way Orwell wrote in his essays were college professors giving lectures and politicians making speeches. I believe that Orwell chose a formal voice for his essays on purpose.

I say this not to nitpick with you, Stijn, but because I think it's both very understandable and very dangerous for people to assume that the everyday life of the past can be directly reconstructed from the formal artifacts of that time.

I do think you're right that people were, in general, more formal in their everyday speech in the first half of the 20th century than they are today--especially people from economically and educationally privileged backgrounds. However, I also think it's true that Orwell purposefully chose a formal voice, rather than an everyday voice, for his essays.

[zornhau]

Yes, there's stuff you can be taught - why should prose fiction be any different from any other art?

The idea that each writer should heroically reinvent the entire craft is laughable, and also misses the point of most fiction, which is to dump a story from the author's brain to that of the reader, via words.

However, the contents of the ideal writing class would differ depending on the period. Tastes, and even language, change. Something that is perfect now, must almost by definition become imperfect at some other date.

[RLSMiller]

Did Orwell use a lot of passive voice in 1984? If so, he must've done it very well, because I never noticed, and I've read that book several times. 1984 is the only 'classic' novel I've ever really enjoyed.

He did it for very, very deliberate purposes, often revising the manuscript just to make it more passive. If anyone's bored and wants a huge essay to read, this explains why. (http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/comp2/1984final.htm)

[otterman]

If you have a capacity for learning you can be taught the mechanics of writing and can mimic the work of others. In my view this doesn't make you a writer in the true sense. Something else is required, a depth of observation, an imagination that goes beyond the basic ability to imitate, a need to be heard. Some will argue that we are all just recycling what has been done before, but I don't buy that. To write, you have to put something of yourself into your work. I think this is what people mean when they refer to a writer finding/having a distinct voice. It is an intangible quality which allows a writer to speak to readers in his/her own way. I'm not sure it can be defined but we recognize it when we see it others and we rejoice when when we find it in ourselves.

[Thrillride]

Can you be taught to write?

Yes.

Next question?

*gasping for air*

Thank you for that!

~Thrill

[slcboston]

Yes.

But the better question is: can you be taught to write well?

Also yes. :)

And the biggest question: can you be taught to write so that others will find you interesting, or clear, or distinctive from everyone else?

... Maybe. But a lot of that is based in talent. Talent cannot be taught. The part of it that is skill can be, like any other art.

I, for example, can draw. Not well, but well enough that my pictures are recognizable. That skill was taught to me in art classes both public and private. I'm reasonably good at watercolors. Can I be taught to paint so that my works rival those in museums (regardless of your opinion of modern art :) ) ... Nope. Instruction only takes me so far. I can strive to emulate, and I can practice, practice, practice, but a Renoir I will never be no matter what I do. The inherent talent just isn't there.

[Stijn Hommes]

The emphasis on passive voice in 1984 was a particular stylistic choice which, as people have already pointed out, was meant to underscore the ways in which the dystopian society Orwell depicted strangled the capacity for direct action.

Also, it wasn't necessarily considered a successful choice at the time. Contemporary reviews of 1984 weren't all raves by any means.

For myself, I think the book succeeds on the basis of its ideas and characterizations, not on the basis of the stylistic choices. Orwell was no fan of passive voice in general, as he made amply clear in "Politics and the English Language."


Now, for a potentially tiresome rant about one of my pet hobby-horses:





George Orwell was born in 1903. My grandparents and great-aunts and great-uncles were all born around that time, and were from roughly the same economic and educational background as he (most from the US and Canada, admittedly, but some of my great-aunts and uncles by marriage were from the UK and Ireland).

None of them spoke the way George Orwell wrote. I've read transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, which were conducted by folks who were Orwell's contemporaries, and they didn't speak the way Orwell wrote, even in that very formal context.

Now, I'm referring to his authorial voice in his essays here. I do think that Orwell had a really good ear for how people spoke--the dialogue in 1984 is a good example of this, and I think some of the dialogue in Keep the Aspidistra Flying is very realistic as well.

But the only people I've ever heard speaking the way Orwell wrote in his essays were college professors giving lectures and politicians making speeches. I believe that Orwell chose a formal voice for his essays on purpose.

I say this not to nitpick with you, Stijn, but because I think it's both very understandable and very dangerous for people to assume that the everyday life of the past can be directly reconstructed from the formal artifacts of that time.

I do think you're right that people were, in general, more formal in their everyday speech in the first half of the 20th century than they are today--especially people from economically and educationally privileged backgrounds. However, I also think it's true that Orwell purposefully chose a formal voice, rather than an everyday voice, for his essays.
I obviously can't counter all that research. But I did get my main point across anyway. What is considered acceptable changes over time.

[David I]

"I can't make you a great dancer. Hell, maybe I can't even make you a good dancer. But I know one thing: if you let me try, I can make you a better dancer."

-- Joe Gideon in All That Jazz

[IceCreamEmpress]

But I did get my main point across anyway. What is considered acceptable changes over time.

Yes, absolutely.

In The Naked and the Dead, Norman Mailer's soldier characters say "Fug this fugging war" and other sentences that look totally ludicrous to us today. But in 1948, this was considered "daring realism" by many. Nonetheless, no human has ever said "fugging" except as a joke. ;)

[Nyna]

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?


No, your story is probably not perfect. It is, perhaps, as perfect as you are capable of making it without listening to outside advice; that is a different animal all together. That's why there are beta readers, so that they can look at your perfect story and tell you that certain passages aren't saying exactly what you think that they are, or that there's a plot hole you could drive a truck through, or that they kept stumbling over the language. And that's why you get critiques, so that people can point out where the language starts falling down, and then you, as the writer, can at least recognize your weak spots and decide whether or not to change them, and how to do so. The only way to create something entirely perfect without the slightest bit of help is to assume that how your work reads to others doesn't matter nearly as much as how it reads to you, at which point it's pretty much, as my mother calls it, mental-masturbation.

[preyer]

'I think this is what people mean when they refer to a writer finding/having a distinct voice. It is an intangible quality which allows a writer to speak to readers in his/her own way.' ~ i think it's entirely tangible. 'voice' is nothing more than what you say and how you say it. 'voice' is so dramatic when all it really is is your style, and you hope your style is enjoyed. there's nothing mystical about it. sometimes the less 'voice' you have the better off you are anyway, especially if your 'voice' isn't well-received for whatever reason.

can you be a successful writer without talent? sure, why not? you can absolutely learn to write well, you can most certainly learn how to write effectively, and you can rather easily enough do your own market research. all the 'voice' in the world doesn't guarantee anything. having the market cornered on any one thing, like imagination, doesn't mean a thing.

and i've argued endlessly that i don't believe in imagination. i do believe in an ability to process information in a certain way, and i believe that if such processing produces a result most people are entertained by you'll be labelled 'imaginative.' i don't think there's much 'spontaneous imagination' that can't get to by thinking about it given the idea that you've got the motivation to think about it. 'spontaneous' probably isn't so much actually what happens as much as having your mind trained towards 'spontenaity.' in other words, my mother, who hates classical music, isn't going to be walking down the street one day and for no reason suddenly stops and says, 'i've got a great idea for an opera!' without having ever given it literally a single thought.

creativity, voice, imagination... i think it's a bunch of nonsense, personally. if you've got the motivation, the inclination and the writing charisma, nothing is left to synonymous-ize except 'talent,' and i'm going to call that 'conglomeration.' but, we sure do feel special considering ourselves as having these rare gifts, don't we? i don't think it's rare as much as we're some of the few who have decided to put them into practice.

[otterman]

preyer:
You say "voice is nothing more than what you say and how you say it." That's an awful lot. When I said voice is an intangible quality, I was referring to its source, not that we can't recognize it in writing. You don't believe in imagination, you don't believe in creativity, yet you believe in talent. Is it possible the talented people are imaginative and creative?

[Will Lavender]

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

Except "perfect" is a criteria that must be objectively judged. If the writer himself is deeming the work "perfect," then the judgment has no value whatsoever.

A response to the original question:

Yes, a person can be taught to write -- but who just writes? I don't believe that everyone can be taught to write well, and I'm not even sure that many people can be taught to write well. If that were so then we would have a lot of great writing, and obviously that's not the case. After all, teaching (at universities; online; at bookstores all over the world) goes on pretty extensively in our field, doesn't it?

Writing well is like singing well or dancing well or painting well: it takes talent. And talent cannot be taught.

[althrasher]

Those who think that a person cannot be taught to write are probably those who believe a person cannot be taught to sing, dance, play an instrument, or be in theater. And yes, you can teach all of them.

[preyer]

i think 'creativity' and 'imagination' can be learned through practice. i don't believe we lose either ability as we grow older, we just become more restrictive without quite knowing it. the sloppy messes we produced as children are cute and given the context, may not be bad. as we grow older and more selective, our experience tells us three headed purple bunny rabbits with five fingers isn't cute for an adult, so i think we automatically filter that out as the garbage it is considering being an adult. does that make sense?

'talent' is the part of the brain that utilizes learned skillz and presents them in a style at least some people can enjoy. basically, a popularity contest of sorts. 'talent' is in the eye of the beholder, after all. because of that subjectivity we're inclined to believe it's something other than what it is. sometimes 'talent' comes through in the actual story (after thought, or 'inspiration.' 'the da vinci code' is a rip off, imo, and DB's colon should be stomped into the ground, pulverized into a fine dust, and shot into the sun. but, by way of example, the 'story' is there), though i'd say more often than not comes out in the presentation (like 'harry potter.' i know people think she's a great writer, but her words are unreadable to me. no, i'm not bashing her, just her style isn't one i like. then again, it's a *childrens'* book, so there ya go. i'm not a child. were i to have written the exact same idea with the exact same characters, hell, even the same exact events in the same order, it probably wouldn't be anywhere near a fraction as popular. am i less talented? i don't think so, i just have a style that's not nearly as popular. her story wasn't blazingly original. i think it's uncle jim who wrote about a magick school for kids years before 'potter.')

i'll say this: were it me who did a painting of marilyn monroe and a can of soup, i'd be a starving artist. if i had a weird haircut and good PR, i could literally have an assembly line of 'art' and sell every last one of them. that's what i consider talent to be, essentially just your presentation skillz.

every single published author out there has had someone tell them they're talented. some stuff out there my dog would be embarrassed to crap on if i laid it down. the only thing that separates them from hemingway are their experiences, the depth of their contemplation, the way their brain functions, and how 'talented' they're perceived. the only thing stopping any single one of us from writing something comparable to j.d. salinger is... presentation. it's not the idea ~ as we're told so often, those are a dime a dozen. i can give the same idea to two different movie directors and one might wind up with a tax shelter and the other a box office smash.

you want to know something ironic? i've been called 'mr. imagination' by some. ha! if they only knew.... even more ironic is few people call me a good writer. yet i'm 'talented' because of my 'imagination'...? i mean, besides for some grammar, my sentences aren't any more malformed than anyone else's when it comes to actual writing. the ideas are there, the 'imagination,' the 'creativity', and really the writing isn't incomprehensible, so why am i not a 'good' writer? with all this 'talent,' why am not a writing demi-gawd?

presentation. i've not a style that hooks the reader's psyche. my 'presentation' is 'poor' because i don't know how to frame words that grips a 100 million peoples' psychological base. that's all the more strange to me because i'm a confident writer. probably too over-confident, lol. it's why we as writers use archetypes, because we know those are time-tested ways of tapping into human nature, and in that we're consciously trying to snare part of the reader's attention by fulfilling their psychological need. and then we wonder why, after having done everything right, we're rejected.

presentation. unfortunately, presentation is the hardest thing to learn. you could almost call it luck. and i'm not sure you can learn that except in leaps and bounds, it's just a trial and error thing for most of us. otter, j.k. rowling is no more talented, creative, or imaginative (in fact, i'm somewhat hard-pressed to find this unadulterated imagination in the details that she's supposedly good for. i mean, flying cars, giant spiders, moving trees? *that's* imaginative? guess it must be in the presentation, eh?) than you are. you're probably a better writer than dan brown, from what i understand. i could go to SYW right now and probably find a dozen stories rowling could turn into bestsellers just because her style is more popular. same ideas, just expressed differently.

people who don't know jack shit about 'talent' sure do like saying we've got it. maybe someone told them they're a talented quilt-maker. and i could make a quilt that's a design nightmare that, because i've no preconceived notions of design i've filtered out through experience, would garner me much praise as having 'potential.' if enough people liked the bizarre pattern enough, i'm 'talented.'

talent, imo, is effective presentation, which is nothing more than other people's perception and opinions. we're never great or terrible at this thing until someone says so, and they say that in a variety of ways. sometimes those ways have no real bearing on tangible facts. that's why so many of us 'talented' writers will never be heard of.

hm, i could be rambling here, i've had to deal with customers while writing....

[ishtar'sgate]

[quote=Moon Daughter;1924174]I don't think we can be taught certain things, like our voices.
quote]
I agree. My own voice and style are completely different from the books I like to read. I can't explain it. You'd think I'd be influenced by the authors I enjoy but I don't seem to be. Go figure.
Linnea

[deathwizard]

I think you can be taught to write. But, like anything, natural talent also plays a role. I know a guy who was a collegiate swimmer and once swam against Mark Spitz. (He lost, but not embarrassingly so.) This guy is a natural athlete: big, strong, muscular, flexible. The very first time he played golf was in his 20s on a tough course, and he shot an 89. (Which, for you non-golfers, is an astounding feat.) Some writers are like this, too.

[TrickyFiction]

The simple answer, I think, is yes. We were all taught to write, lest we forget. Whether it was a human teacher or novels we read, something helped to teach us. That said, only you can teach yourself to write like you, which is just my way of repeating what everyone else already said about voice.

[Susan Breen]

I know people can be taught to write because I teach a class in creative writing and over the ten weeks of the class, the students (most of them, anyway) improve. For me the issue is more, do you have a story to tell? How do you figure out what that story is, and how do you interest the reader in hearing it?

[Edward G]

I appreciate all the responses. I did try to respond to some of them, but I was kicked off line for some reason as I posted the response, and I just don't have it in me to re-write them.

This thing is still eating at me though.

[James D. Macdonald]

"I can't make you a great dancer. Hell, maybe I can't even make you a good dancer. But I know one thing: if you let me try, I can make you a better dancer."

-- Joe Gideon in All That Jazz

"I cannot give you a cross of iron, but I can take you where they grow."

-- Sergeant Steiner in Cross of Iron

"Whatever you are, be the best one you can be."

-- Ru Paul

[swvaughn]

"Whatever you are, be the best one you can be."

-- Ru Paul

Alas, no one can be a better whatever than Ru Paul.

[JeanneTGC]

I agree with DeathWizard -- natural talent does matter and can make a huge difference. Perseverence matters, too.

The question the OP's question begs (to me, at least) is this: Can you be taught to write well enough to be published? (And by published I mean you are paid for your writing, versus self-pubbing.)

My answer would be yes, but you have to actually want to learn and grow and be willing to suffer massive rejection while learning and growing. And even then, it may not be enough, and/or the work and effort may not be worth the end result.

[Just Jack]

The mechanics of writing are important, and must be taught, or at least self-taught. But, dont let those mechanics over-ride your own style of writing. The trick is to just balance mechanics with your own style at a level that feels comfortable. You dont want to much mechanics, then you might just sound like a robot for 200 pages. Then again you cant abandon the mechanics, then your novel will just....suck.

You need comfortable balance my friend. :D

[Edward G]

I agree with DeathWizard -- natural talent does matter and can make a huge difference. Perseverence matters, too.

The question the OP's question begs (to me, at least) is this: Can you be taught to write well enough to be published? (And by published I mean you are paid for your writing, versus self-pubbing.)

My answer would be yes, but you have to actually want to learn and grow and be willing to suffer massive rejection while learning and growing. And even then, it may not be enough, and/or the work and effort may not be worth the end result.

I have a problem with the publishing part. For one, self-publishing is publishing. It may not be commercially lucrative, but it is publishing. I often think if more writers stopped chasing money and started chasing art, literature and the human race would be elevated. But as it is, the only mark of a good book is the sales figures. So James Patterson is a great author, and that's all there is to it. What's even worse is that unpublished authors think that unless they are published, they aren't any good. Acceptance by someone else, commercial interest by someone else is all that matters.

But I know this isn't the popular opinion in here, and I know that everyone in here that has been published is also a good writer, and I don't mean to imply anything different. It just would be nice to meet a writer with a different motivation than commercial publication. And I'm a hypocrite; I want it, too. There's just part of me that wishes I could rise above the need to be published. That's all.

[Edward G]

The mechanics of writing are important, and must be taught, or at least self-taught. But, dont let those mechanics over-ride your own style of writing. The trick is to just balance mechanics with your own style at a level that feels comfortable. You dont want to much mechanics, then you might just sound like a robot for 200 pages. Then again you cant abandon the mechanics, then your novel will just....suck.

You need comfortable balance my friend. :D

I think you have the right idea, and I agree. Everything one learns in college writing applies, and in college creative writing. But I've read a book where the author was a first timer and the descriptions, every description, slavishly seemed to follow the rule: include all the senses in your descriptions. So, the writing actually became terrible and unbearable for me.

People shun long paragaphs and sentences, but I don't. They act like any storytelling is taboo and all things must be shown. That's just not true. James said we are slaves to the reader, and I agreed with him wholeheartedly, but I'm beginning to think we are slaves to the story, or should be, the reader be damned. Think about all the previous talk of Umberto Ecco. Now there's a guy who obviously serves the story and not the reader. I will crticize his style up and down, but I have to admit, he's uncompromising. Shoot, now I want to read one of his books.

Umberto fans, I've only read bits of U.E. If I get a book to read, which should be the first one I read by him?

[IceCreamEmpress]

Except "perfect" is a criteria that must be objectively judged. If the writer himself is deeming the work "perfect," then the judgment has no value whatsoever.

And I'm not sure there even is such a thing as a "perfect" novel or short story or play (there may be "perfect" poems, though!).

Madame Bovary, for example, is in my opinion and many others' one of the greatest novels ever written. Yet Flaubert famously describes his protagonist's eyes as blue in one chapter and brown in another; there are some minor inconsistencies in the plot chronology as well. The book's imperfections don't keep it from being great.

To me, asking yourself "Is this {piece of writing} perfect?" is asking yourself the wrong question entirely.

[Edward G]

I'll tell you what my problem is. I posted in SYW and was criticized. Some say I shouldn't have used this phrase or that description, and I want to scream: Then you write the damn story! Oh, you can't because you didn't think of it!

I admit that's an immature way to look at criticizm, but that's what got me thinking I'm not skilled enough to write my next novel, which is very important to me. It's very important that I do it well. That's when I began to wonder: If the story is given to an individual and that individual only, then they can't really screw it up, can they? It would be like criticizing a child for the way he or she looks. One can't criticize, that's just the way the kid looks. How can a work be criticized? Even if George Orwell came back from the grave and wanted to change some things in 1984, he really couldn't, could he? As soon as he did, it wouldn't be 1984 anymore. It would be 1984 Part II or something. And if he changed it based on reader opinion, or the opinion of professors or critics, then it really wouldn't be his work at all anymore would it?

Thanks for letting me rant. Time for the last leg of our trip.

[megan_d]

I want lots of people to have access to my book, therefore I want to be published, not self-pubbed.

[Will Lavender]

I have a problem with the publishing part. For one, self-publishing is publishing. It may not be commercially lucrative, but it is publishing. I often think if more writers stopped chasing money and started chasing art, literature and the human race would be elevated. But as it is, the only mark of a good book is the sales figures. So James Patterson is a great author, and that's all there is to it. What's even worse is that unpublished authors think that unless they are published, they aren't any good. Acceptance by someone else, commercial interest by someone else is all that matters.

I don't think that books that sell a lot are automatically considered "great," nor are there authors. (James Patterson great? Well...) It's a widely held belief that there are many, many books that sell modestly or even poorly that are tremendous works of art. Look through the yearly top 10 lists: you'll see very few bestsellers. And while I don't think the bestseller should simply be dismissed as "art" (whatever that is) because it sells, I do agree with the critics that a lot of times the best and most powerful works of literature toil in virtual obscurity.

One of my favorite writers is Michael Chabon. The Atlantic Monthly ran a piece recently quoting the sales figures for perhaps his best novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay, and they were meager compared to the bestselling novelist Harlan Coben's. Very meager. Yet I don't think you'll find many who will deny the talent and artistry of Chabon's work. I certainly don't.

[Bubastes]

I'll tell you what my problem is. I posted in SYW and was criticized. Some say I shouldn't have used this phrase or that description, and I want to scream: Then you write the damn story! Oh, you can't because you didn't think of it!


Critiques are for improving the story. It's not about you. Once you take yourself (generic "yourself," not you personally) out of the equation and focus on making the story the best it can be, you end up welcoming harsh critiques.

One of the best critiques I received was from a person who didn't even read in my genre. He suggested cutting a scene that represented 5% of the entire short story. After hemming and hawing a bit, I made the cut. It made a world of difference. I wouldn't have recognized the pacing problems I had without the critique.

Again, focus on bringing out the best in your story. You're just the conduit for the story. It's not about you.

[swvaughn]

I'll tell you what my problem is. I posted in SYW and was criticized. Some say I shouldn't have used this phrase or that description, and I want to scream: Then you write the damn story! Oh, you can't because you didn't think of it!

I admit that's an immature way to look at criticizm, but that's what got me thinking I'm not skilled enough to write my next novel, which is very important to me. It's very important that I do it well. That's when I began to wonder: If the story is given to an individual and that individual only, then they can't really screw it up, can they? It would be like criticizing a child for the way he or she looks. One can't criticize, that's just the way the kid looks. How can a work be criticized?

Criticizing the mechanics of a story is definitely not the same as criticizing the physical attributes of a person. A person's physical attributes - eye color, hair color, facial shape and structure, and all that jazz - cannot be changed. The mechanics of a story can (and I'm talking strictly mechanics, not voice or style), and in many cases should.

There is always, always room for improvement in any writing. No written words are perfect. It is a great accomplishment to write a novel. However, in my opinion, it is a greater and more difficult accomplishment to edit a novel well. Not just for grammar and spelling, but for structural, stylistic and pacing issues that can be improved, in order to improve the story.

Those who have critiqued your work in SYW are only making suggestions about things that can be changed without impacting your voice. (Yes, I've read the posts.) It's always difficult to take criticism on your work, but after the initial sting fades, it is crucial that you learn to step back and look objectively at comments, and learn to figure out for yourself where you can make improvements in your prose.

You can improve it. Everyone can always improve something they've written. Even George Orwell would want to rework some of his turns of phrase, if he were to come back from the grave. Writers tinker with words, always. Nothing is ever perfect.

The most important thing I have ever learned about writing is that I'm not as good as I think I am. It's the only way I will ever improve. If you want to elevate your writing to an art form, you need to start with you, and not all those editors and agents out there looking to make a buck.

I'm not trying to insult you. Just giving you my opinion.

[narnia]

**snip**

There is always, always room for improvement in any writing. No written words are perfect. It is a great accomplishment to write a novel. However, in my opinion, it is a greater and more difficult accomplishment to edit a novel well. Not just for grammar and spelling, but for structural, stylistic and pacing issues that can be improved, in order to improve the story.

**snip**

It's always difficult to take criticism on your work, but after the initial sting fades, it is crucial that you learn to step back and look objectively at comments, and learn to figure out for yourself where you can make improvements in your prose.

**snip**

The most important thing I have ever learned about writing is that I'm not as good as I think I am. It's the only way I will ever improve. If you want to elevate your writing to an art form, you need to start with you, and not all those editors and agents out there looking to make a buck.



For me personally, these are lessons I learned here at AW that will be critical to achieving my goals, well said swvaughn! And especially the part I bolded, although most days I suffer from I s&ck syndrome so .... ;)

Perhaps others will think less of me by saying this :(, but I do not want to write the Great American Novel. I want to entertain people, give them a good scare and make them want more. I want people to tell their friends that they stayed up all night reading because they couldn't put my book down. I want people to say that they had to leave the lights on when they read my book. I want people to anxiously await my next book because they loved the previous books.

So okay, I am reaching for the moon, but in the meantime I have to build the bridge to get there.

I love to read and be entertained, and that is what I want to do with my own writing.

:Sun:

[swvaughn]

Perhaps others will think less of me by saying this :(, but I do not want to write the Great American Novel. I want to entertain people, give them a good scare and make them want more. I want people to tell their friends that they stayed up all night reading because they couldn't put my book down. I want people to say that they had to leave the lights on when they read my book. I want people to anxiously await my next book because they loved the previous books.

So okay, I am reaching for the moon, but in the meantime I have to build the bridge to get there.

Oh, I don't think anyone's going to think less of you for this, Narnia. The first of the "Great American Novels" were written before anyone coined the term, so they weren't trying to be Great either -- they were just trying to get their voice out there and entertain people at the same time, same as you and me. :)

I'm with you all the way. If anything I write is ever called Great, it won't be until after I'm dead. So right now, I just want to reach out and touch someone. Preferably several someones. (I am a hack! There, I'm out and proud... :D)

You've got the right attitude. You'll reach the moon yet!

[JeanneTGC]

I have a problem with the publishing part. For one, self-publishing is publishing. It may not be commercially lucrative, but it is publishing. I often think if more writers stopped chasing money and started chasing art, literature and the human race would be elevated. But as it is, the only mark of a good book is the sales figures. So James Patterson is a great author, and that's all there is to it. What's even worse is that unpublished authors think that unless they are published, they aren't any good. Acceptance by someone else, commercial interest by someone else is all that matters.

But I know this isn't the popular opinion in here, and I know that everyone in here that has been published is also a good writer, and I don't mean to imply anything different. It just would be nice to meet a writer with a different motivation than commercial publication. And I'm a hypocrite; I want it, too. There's just part of me that wishes I could rise above the need to be published. That's all.
It's great to chase art -- my question was whether all who chase it can actually catch it and, once caught, do anything with it.

And, the mark of a good book isn't sales figures, it's your enjoyment level. Which is why there are so many books out there, along with so many of everything else out there.

The mark of a successful book tends to be sales figures, but what one person considers a success versus another is also variable.

Why would it be nice to meet a writer with a different motivation than commercial publication? Is there something inherently wrong with wanting to be published traditionally? And why aren't you able to find such a person? Go to any fanfiction site -- plenty of folks there who are only writing for fun. Writing with a goal of traditional publication IS harder -- it demands that you continuously improve, that you have more than "one book/story" in you, that you learn how to write so that readers other than yourself will be enthralled, that you successfully traverse the layers that professional publishing requires -- much harder than writing for fun alone.

BTW, commercial success and artistic merit are not mutually exclusive.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Why would it be nice to meet a writer with a different motivation than commercial publication?


I'm a little confused by this, too. Even Emily Dickinson wanted to be published commercially!

[DonnaDuck]

Anyone can be taught to do anything and can even be pretty decent as whatever it is they're being taught but in the end it's talent that takes them the rest of the way. If everything could be taught, everything would be the same, everything would be mechanical. You can teach me to sing till the cows come home but it won't make me sound any less like a dying cat being squeezed. For writing, you need to be able to tell your own story instead of mimicing someone else's. People don't want an exact replica of something already on the shelves. They want something different that they haven't read. If they wanted to read the same thing over again, they'd just pick up their first book and do another read-through.

I think talent and marketability are two very different things and I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Britney Spears, for example, is marketable and, in my opinion, lacking singing talent (although, from what I understand, even industry professionals claim she can't sing but she's a money-maker). I don't think validation proves that you do have talent and constant rejection proves that you don't. Having a business mind and be able to market yourself to the public shouldn't be synonymous with talent. The talent to market is just that, the talent to market and if you can find a niche and sell yourself to it then fine but that's your talent. The talent to write, sing, dance, act, whatever are separate from that and which is why many of those celebrities have agents to market them for themselves.

I think having talent is something that's undeniable (although the contenders on American Idol would be hard-pressed to hear otherwise) and you don't necessarily need mainstream validation to be deemed good at something or talented. Usually, in order to make it big, it's dependent on your timing, not your talent.

As for betas, I would cry if I didn't have one for my writing. It's a means for me to be able to see why writing from outside eyes and see what works and what doesn't. I change what I feel should be changed and if I don't like the opinion of the beta or think it won't work, I won't use it. Your work is not perfect the second it flows from your pen (unless you're Anne Rice) and the author can not edit their work alone. They're incapable of being able to step away and look at their writing it objective eyes so they rely on others to do it for them. I also find time allows for clearer readings on my own work as well. While the eyes aren't completely fresh, they're clearer than what they were when the piece was first written.

[DonnaDuck]

I'm a little confused by this, too. Even Emily Dickinson wanted to be published commercially!


Uh, really? Because from what I know, she never had any intention of being published ever and expressly stated that she never wanted her work published. When she died, her kin took it upon themselves to publish her work. It's one of the reasons why her poems are so cryptic, because she never intended for anyone else to read them so she felt no need to explain them. She knew what they meant and that was that.

That is, of course, should my Emily Dickinson class I took in college be completely wrong.

[Pup]

I'll tell you what my problem is. I posted in SYW and was criticized. Some say I shouldn't have used this phrase or that description, and I want to scream: Then you write the damn story! Oh, you can't because you didn't think of it!

Do you really think you're the only one who secretly hopes that their entry in SYW will be the one that all the critters say is perfect and you shouldn't change a word?

Simple solution. If you're satisfied with your writing, there's no need to share it with betas or critters.

If you think their reactions would be helpful, then do.

If you just want praise, well, that's not where to get it, because the purpose of betas and critters is to give their reactions, negative and positive.

That's when I began to wonder: If the story is given to an individual and that individual only, then they can't really screw it up, can they? It would be like criticizing a child for the way he or she looks. One can't criticize, that's just the way the kid looks.

Uh, yeah, you can criticize a child for the way he looks. People do it all the time. Some kids are born prettier than others. Every beauty contest has losers.

If what you want is someone like the mother who gives the kid a hug afterwards and says, "It doesn't matter what those judges thought, you're still the most beautiful child in the world to me," well, your mother's probably not posting on SYW or reading the slush piles. Actually, she's probably not the typical reader of a self-published manuscript either, so that's not even a safe haven.

I see it more as showing up for the beauty contest with a dirty face and ragged clothes. Yes, each of us may have a limited amount of inherent talent, but we've all got lots we can improve on before we reach that limit.

But admitting one needs to practice and study, and then actually buckling down and doing it, is harder than playing the role of a misunderstood genius.

[Bekah]

I wouldn't think either more or less highly of someone who chose not to aim for publication. If someone would rather write as a hobby (I don't mean hobby disparagingly) than a career, what's wrong with that? I love to cook, but I don't intend to go to a culinary institute and make a living at it, and I don't think that's some sort of shameful waste. (I'm more slap-dash with my cooking than anything, but I wouldn't consider it a waste if someone chose to perfect it to an art, but still didn't pursue it professionally/publicly.)

On the other hand, I would wonder why someone had made that decision if he voiced other opinions that contradicted it. If someone thinks the proper aim of a novel is to Make A Difference, to the point of sneering at novels that are merely entertaining, then it makes no sense for that person to turn around and act as if it's somehow more noble to write without publication in mind. It's not going to make a difference if no one reads it. And whatever one thinks about the validity of self-pubbing, nothing that's read by just a handful of people is going to "change the way the world thinks."

I do think less of people who choose to squander their talent, and then try to build up their motives as being more pure than that of those who hone their skills for public consumption. Or I at least feel sad that they feel the need to delude themselves, whether out of fear or whatever else causes it. Someone who has the passion and skill to write even halfway competently can learn to write better, but not if she chooses not to even try out of pride or fear or any other reason. If she's genuinely just writing for fun, then that doesn't apply. I mean if she wants it and convinces herself she doesn't, or shouldn't. That's sad.

[IceCreamEmpress]

That is, of course, should my Emily Dickinson class I took in college be completely wrong.


Your Emily Dickinson class from college was completely wrong. Emily Dickinson published 11 poems during her lifetime.

Now, she published them anonymously, but she did publish them. Five were published in the local newspaper, and six were published in various other newspapers and magazines. Here's (http://www.emilydickinson.org/safe/zrepub.html) a very cool link to the original publication of "Safe in their alabaster chambers".

Dickinson began her correspondence with her mentor, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, specifically because she wanted his assistance in getting her work published. Higginson advised her not to publish because he thought her works would not find a receptive audience (!!)

[Shadow_Ferret]

Can we be taught to write?

Yes.

Can we be taught to write well?

No. That's something the comes from inside. Either you have the talent or you don't.

[DonnaDuck]

Your Emily Dickinson class from college was completely wrong. Emily Dickinson published 11 poems during her lifetime.

Now, she published them anonymously, but she did publish them. Five were published in the local newspaper, and six were published in various other newspapers and magazines. Here's (http://www.emilydickinson.org/safe/zrepub.html) a very cool link to the original publication of "Safe in their alabaster chambers".

Dickinson began her correspondence with her mentor, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, specifically because she wanted his assistance in getting her work published. Higginson advised her not to publish because he thought her works would not find a receptive audience (!!)

This actually sounds relatively familiar but I could have sworn that at her death, she didn't want her work published after she died? And wasn't Higginson a crush of sorts, to her? She wrote letters to him or something even though he was married. I have a jilted memory so pardon me if this doesn't make much sense.

[BlueLucario]

Of course you can be taught to write! How do you think we are communicating? But in terms of story writing I guess PART of it can be learned by instinct.

[JeanneTGC]

Of course you can be taught to write! How do you think we are communicating? But in terms of story writing I guess PART of it can be learned by instinct.
LOL, good one, and so true.

I'd agree, though instead of instinct I'd insert either talent or perseverence. Probably both. The more you write, the better you get, as long as you're looking to improve, at least.

[PeeDee]

Can we be taught to write?

Yes.

Can we be taught to write well?

No. That's something the comes from inside. Either you have the talent or you don't.

There's the whole answer, succinct and entirely right.

[DaddyCat]

LOL, good one, and so true.

I'd agree, though instead of instinct I'd insert either talent or perseverence. Probably both. The more you write, the better you get, as long as you're looking to improve, at least.

Perseverance is the essential thing here. What we're calling "talent" is the convergence of acquired skills with the desire to use and improve them. That desire to find the best word, rearrange that paragraph or demonstrate that character's traits, is what separates the writing Wizards (of whatever skill level) from the literate Muggles who happen to use the same tools.

[Nateskate]

We each have specific native gifts and abilities. Depending what they are, they can be cultivated and refined.

So, on some levels a person can be taught, but their talents will dictate how far they can go. Some people's native gifts don't lend to story telling. Others do.

[vox]

In my (very) limited writing experience, I've come to believe that effective writing is less about words and ideas and more about people. Certainly the way a writer strings words together has a tremendous impact on readability. And saving the world is usally more exciting to read about than say, taking out the trash. But if you don't know people and their nature can you really tell a decent story?

I think that same understanding of people ultimately allows the writer to predict how the reader will be impacted by whatever is written, and from that springs word choice, sentence structure, etc...

Like all the other skills of writing, some of that "people knowledge" can probably be taught, but much of what I read on the subject of writing seems to dance around this aspect of the craft. It is sometimes implied or alluded to, but i've never seen it laid out in concrete terms.

[JeanneTGC]

In my (very) limited writing experience, I've come to believe that effective writing is less about words and ideas and more about people. Certainly the way a writer strings words together has a tremendous impact on readability. And saving the world is usally more exciting to read about than say, taking out the trash. But if you don't know people and their nature can you really tell a decent story?

I think that same understanding of people ultimately allows the writer to predict how the reader will be impacted by whatever is written, and from that springs word choice, sentence structure, etc...

Like all the other skills of writing, some of that "people knowledge" can probably be taught, but much of what I read on the subject of writing seems to dance around this aspect of the craft. It is sometimes implied or alluded to, but i've never seen it laid out in concrete terms.
Maybe it comes from experience. While we have a lot of talented and driven younger writers at AW, they're still in the minority, and probably always will be. It's one of the reasons it's so exciting when the industry discovers a young (age-wise) writer -- because it's rare. Possibly this is due to just what you point out, Vox, in that people knowlege stems very much from experience, and the older you are, the more experience you are likely to have logged.

[DancingMaenid]

Why would it be nice to meet a writer with a different motivation than commercial publication? Is there something inherently wrong with wanting to be published traditionally? And why aren't you able to find such a person? Go to any fanfiction site -- plenty of folks there who are only writing for fun. Writing with a goal of traditional publication IS harder -- it demands that you continuously improve, that you have more than "one book/story" in you, that you learn how to write so that readers other than yourself will be enthralled, that you successfully traverse the layers that professional publishing requires -- much harder than writing for fun alone.


I have nothing against people who write primarily for commercial publication. But I feel that a lot of times, that's the only path that's presented as being "right." Also, people are inclined to look at things through their own tinted lenses. Just as I can't always give advice on publishing concerns, someone who's very concerned about marketability may not always relate to my goals or have experience with them.

Fan fiction sites aren't always good networking sources because many of the writers are only interested in writing fan fiction, and most of the discussion is about fan fiction, so it's not always a good community for people who neither write nor read fan fiction.

There's also a lot of in between area between being a career writer and writing only for a fun time. To me, writing is neither, specifically. It's a craft. My primary concern is crafting a good story and improving my skills. That's what I like about writing. I don't always want to be told how a publisher might look at my story or whether or not my plot fits the current industry trends, because even though I think about that, my interest is mainly in creating the story I want to create and that I feel will be entertaining, not selling it. Selling it isn't a concern for me until whatever I'm writing is done and if I decide to pursue publication. Indeed, the only reason why I find publication appealing is because it's the best way to have an audience for your work, which I find appealing.

[Atlantis]

Yes and no. Yeah, sure, people can be taught how to put a comma in the right place and how to write dialogue, but that doesn't make them a writer. A real writer has to have vision. A real writer has an endless imagination and a never ending desire to sit and tell stories for hours at a time. My mother's wanted to write a book her whole life but she never gets round to doing it even though she probably is capable (she writes poetry) because she hasn't got it within her to find the time to sit down and write. She hasn't got the dedication or the drive so despite her talent for poetry she will never, ever be a novelist.

[truelyana]

Yes, we can be taught to write. We were taught to write in school, and we still continue to teach ourselfs new things, by the day.

[preyer]

'You can teach me to sing till the cows come home but it won't make me sound any less like a dying cat being squeezed.' ~ assuming you can sing in tune, akin to being able to write effectively, the difference is if people like the sound of your voice. if they do, you're talented, if they don't it still doesn't mean you can't sing better than most popular singers on the radio. a lot of 'talent' is based on nothing more than popularity.

[Edward G]

I have nothing against people who write primarily for commercial publication. But I feel that a lot of times, that's the only path that's presented as being "right." Also, people are inclined to look at things through their own tinted lenses. Just as I can't always give advice on publishing concerns, someone who's very concerned about marketability may not always relate to my goals or have experience with them.


There's also a lot of in between area between being a career writer and writing only for a fun time. To me, writing is neither, specifically. It's a craft. My primary concern is crafting a good story and improving my skills. That's what I like about writing. I don't always want to be told how a publisher might look at my story or whether or not my plot fits the current industry trends, because even though I think about that, my interest is mainly in creating the story I want to create and that I feel will be entertaining, not selling it. Selling it isn't a concern for me until whatever I'm writing is done and if I decide to pursue publication. Indeed, the only reason why I find publication appealing is because it's the best way to have an audience for your work, which I find appealing.

Well said. For me, I wish I could be free without just claiming sour grapes. I mean, I wish I could be free of the need for publication and the money that comes with it, and just concentrate on being a great writer. But I know that I can't. The only way I could would be to be offered publication and turn it down. The day I can say, "Simon and Schuster wanted to publish my book, but I told them to F off. I'm publishing it myself so I have total control." Then I can say I am truly free of the shackles that publication puts on art. I don't think that day is coming any time soon.

Do you really think you're the only one who secretly hopes that their entry in SYW will be the one that all the critters say is perfect and you shouldn't change a word?

It's not that. It's the confidence I have lost that I can do my next novel right. And that's what brings me to the question: is a story unique to an individual storyteller or is it up for grabs. If the crits in SYW have no access to my story except what I have given them, if they couldn't think it up themselves, then there can be no criticism of it. If that story, Caretakers of Eternity, is open to anyone to discover, then absolutely it can be critiqued and the critiques can mean something. But if I'm the only one who could produce Caretakers of Eternity, then no critcism other than my own can have any meaning, and then only up to the time I put it out to be read. Once I've "published" it, even I couldn't change it. It would be what it is. I state all this, but it's really a question I have. Is what I'm saying true?

[MacAllister]

Heh.

Good luck with those golden words, then.

Be sure and let us know how it works out for you.

[TrickyFiction]

But if I'm the only one who could produce Caretakers of Eternity, then no critcism other than my own can have any meaning... Is what I'm saying true?

I don't think it is. It's true that you gave birth to the idea, but whether the way you execute it appeals to others is going be entirely up to -- well, you know -- others. So, the opinions of others about whether the execution is appealing to them matters more than your own opinion about whether your execution will appeal to others. These are your readers. You should listen to them, that is, if you care to have them as readers. If not, then don't bother asking in the first place.

[Paichka]

If the crits in SYW have no access to my story except what I have given them, if they couldn't think it up themselves, then there can be no criticism of it. If that story, Caretakers of Eternity, is open to anyone to discover, then absolutely it can be critiqued and the critiques can mean something. But if I'm the only one who could produce Caretakers of Eternity, then no critcism other than my own can have any meaning, and then only up to the time I put it out to be read. Once I've "published" it, even I couldn't change it. It would be what it is. I state all this, but it's really a question I have. Is what I'm saying true?

This is an interesting question in as far as it delves into such territory as ownership of art, art as public domain and intellectual property.

Unfortunately, I disagree with you. Art is a window...or a mirror. You (as the viewer or reader) look into it and see something that you can take away to enrich your own life. What the artist "meant" by the piece is less important to the viewers than what THEY see. Knowing that Robert Mapplethorpe was commenting on the line between art and obscenity, and pushing society's comfort boundaries with his photographs is all well and good -- wanting to hanging one of his pictures on my wall is another thing altogether. So sure, if you are not going for commercial success, you can tell publishers and readers to F off and say your criticism is the only kind that matters. And that is perfectly valid. If you want people to read your book, if you want to be published, you need to present your readers with the BEST PRODUCT that you can. You owe it to your readers not to waste their time with something that isn't as perfect as it can be.

Here's the rub -- people are always going to criticize your work. Whether they do it here, before publication, in a manner which is helpful to you as the artist (ie, being a Beta or critter) or whether they do it later, after publication, in a manner singularly UNHELPFUL to you as the artist (ie, not buying your book from the local B&N) is really a matter of timing. You can either listen to their criticisms or you can say, "nope, it's perfect the way it is"...it's really no skin off anyone's nose but yours.

Bottom Line: If you post something to SYW, you are asking people to critique your work with the understanding that those critiques are going to help you refine your work. You're asking them for their reactions, and if those reactions are NOT what you wanted your readers to have, then you have an opportunity to adjust to make the work more focused and clear. Otherwise, what's the frapping point of posting?

[JeanneTGC]

It's not that. It's the confidence I have lost that I can do my next novel right. And that's what brings me to the question: is a story unique to an individual storyteller or is it up for grabs. If the crits in SYW have no access to my story except what I have given them, if they couldn't think it up themselves, then there can be no criticism of it. If that story, Caretakers of Eternity, is open to anyone to discover, then absolutely it can be critiqued and the critiques can mean something. But if I'm the only one who could produce Caretakers of Eternity, then no critcism other than my own can have any meaning, and then only up to the time I put it out to be read. Once I've "published" it, even I couldn't change it. It would be what it is. I state all this, but it's really a question I have. Is what I'm saying true?
Per many of the experts out there, there are only 3 stories in the history of the world.

1. Boy meets girl
2. Good versus evil
3. Man against nature

Everything is an off-shoot or an alteration of one of these three.

Ergo, every single one of us could write Caretakers of Eternity. It would be a different book, because each of us is different. Some of us would write a better Caretakers of Eternity than others, but still, all could indeed take that title and write a story of some kind about it.

[seun]

I'll tell you what my problem is. I posted in SYW and was criticized. Some say I shouldn't have used this phrase or that description, and I want to scream: Then you write the damn story! Oh, you can't because you didn't think of it!

Gord, please take your head out of your arse.

[scarletpeaches]

If you want your story to be read, you can bet your arse (head and all) that EVERYONE has a right to criticise it as they see fit.

[ORION]

And I concur with scarlet peaches.
If you think it's bad now wait until you get published and you get continual emails criticizing- and reviews in your hometown papers telling everyone what a twit you are...

[escritora]

Tom, I have a suggestion. I don't know if you offer critiques on this forum, but if you don't consider doing so.

Perhaps if you put yourself in the critiquers seat you will find that your intentions as a reader is to be helpful - not to degrade and make a fellow writer feel less than. That POV may help you feel less defensive when others provide their thoughts on your writing.

[Pup]

I state all this, but it's really a question I have. Is what I'm saying true?

No. But if it helps you cope with the fact that you're not perfect, by all means, believe it.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Writing exactly the way you want to, with no one else's input, is kind of like having sex exactly the way you want to, with no one else's input.

It's satisfying in a lot of ways, but most people prefer doing this particular dance with others.

[swvaughn]

Writing exactly the way you want to, with no one else's input, is kind of like having sex exactly the way you want to, with no one else's input.

It's satisfying in a lot of ways, but most people prefer doing this particular dance with others.

Now THAT is an analogy. Well said! :D

[Edward G]

I don't think it is. It's true that you gave birth to the idea, but whether the way you execute it appeals to others is going be entirely up to -- well, you know -- others. So, the opinions of others about whether the execution is appealing to them matters more than your own opinion about whether your execution will appeal to others. These are your readers. You should listen to them, that is, if you care to have them as readers. If not, then don't bother asking in the first place.

That is a good point. Afterall, is a story even a work of art if no one reads it?


Here's the rub -- people are always going to criticize your work.

And that's a sticking point with me: if people are always going to criticize my work, no matter what I do, then what validity does crticism have? If after adjusting the story to a thousand different opinions it is still critcized, why not just leave it the way it was?


Bottom Line: If you post something to SYW, you are asking people to critique your work with the understanding that those critiques are going to help you refine your work. You're asking them for their reactions, and if those reactions are NOT what you wanted your readers to have, then you have an opportunity to adjust to make the work more focused and clear. Otherwise, what's the frapping point of posting?

That is very true. I have never posted anything I've ever written before, so it was a new experience for me. Would I do it again? I don't know. It depends on what understanding and enlightenment I end up with from this train of thought and discussion.

Per many of the experts out there, there are only 3 stories in the history of the world.

1. Boy meets girl
2. Good versus evil
3. Man against nature

Everything is an off-shoot or an alteration of one of these three.

Ergo, every single one of us could write Caretakers of Eternity. It would be a different book, because each of us is different. Some of us would write a better Caretakers of Eternity than others, but still, all could indeed take that title and write a story of some kind about it.

I don't think those are actually stories. They are classifications of conflicts, and they can all three be grouped into one, if you want to do that: Protagonist vs. conflict. But I get what you are saying, and the only way I can argue against it entirely would be to defend the position that the end of the rough draft is the end of the original story. Hmmm. That thought just hit me. Maybe the end of the first draft is the end of the story and completion of it.

Gord, please take your head out of your arse.

I don't think that's a very nice thing to say. I don't see a way to report a comment to a moderator, and it probably wouldn't do any good, but that's not a very nice thing to say in a civilized discussion. That's pretty insulting.


No. But if it helps you cope with the fact that you're not perfect, by all means, believe it.

It helps me cope with the fact that no agent wants to read my manuscript so far. Maybe my story sucks. And that's the point of this whole post, what makes a story suck? I bought a book once and it was a fantasy YA short novel. I thought it was so bad, that I actually read the whole thing and took notes on all the mistakes I found. Last night I realized that I remember the story. I still remember it, and it was a story, and it wasn't mine. The mistakes I found were part of it. Did I really find mistakes, or was I looking at an oak leaf and critcizing the shape of it?

[Edward G]

Writing exactly the way you want to, with no one else's input, is kind of like having sex exactly the way you want to, with no one else's input.

It's satisfying in a lot of ways, but most people prefer doing this particular dance with others.

Very good point. But we usually don't want a critique afterwards. The way we do it is the way we do it. The last thing I want is for someone to say, "Could you please do it like this other guy used to do it?"

[DaddyCat]

Very good point. But we usually don't want a critique afterwards. The way we do it is the way we do it. The last thing I want is for someone to say, "Could you please do it like this other guy used to do it?"

If I respect my critter/audience/wife and care about her happiness, I'd find some way to accomodate her need without losing my own identity. On the other hand, if my critter/audience/wife respects me and cares about my happiness, she'd find another way to phrase that...

[IceCreamEmpress]

Very good point. But we usually don't want a critique afterwards. The way we do it is the way we do it.

You are missing my point, I think.

Critiques are feedback. Feedback is an essential part of the writing process. Whether the feedback comes from your editor, or from a group of critiquers, or from your writers' group, or from your beta readers doesn't matter. Writing without feedback is not experiencing the entire writing process.

Similarly, making love with someone else is all about getting and giving feedback. You don't come in with an inflexible plan. You change directions based on whether what you're doing is working or not. (At least, I hope you do!)


I think you're confusing critiques with reviews. They are not the same.

[Toothpaste]

Very good point. But we usually don't want a critique afterwards. The way we do it is the way we do it. The last thing I want is for someone to say, "Could you please do it like this other guy used to do it?"


This is interesting and rather telling. See many people would say that a discussion of what you like what you don't, and what the other person likes and doesn't is vital in moving the experience to a new level. A discussion like this, though possibly uncomfortable at the time, can ultimately lead to a deeper experience.

Tom, critiques are one of the most tricky things to contend with. Because in the end you as the author need to decide which to listen to and which to throw to the wayside. Most authors have trusted readers whose opinions they trust and others they simply smile at and never listen to a word of. But I can tell you there is not one author who doesn't get edited and critqued. And this is a wonderful thing because it makes the work so much stronger. With my first book I was asked to cut 10 000 words. I didn't want to do this. But I did. And after, it made my book SO much better, so much tighter, so much, and this sounds odd, like a real book. I didn't cut any scenes. I didn't change the voice or spirit of the book. Editing doesn't mean you compromise, it means you improve.

[Paichka]

All right, I'll play.

Let's say you and your missus (or mister, it's 2008) are having yourselves some sexy time. And you are kissing her like a chicken. Peck, peck, pecking away. Or your (*ahem*) fieldwork is just not getting the job done. Would you rather your missus (or mister) A) explain to you where your mistakes are and show you how to fix them, thus allowing you both to reach nirvana, or B) lie there and fake it, then run away with the Cabana Boy?

Me, I pick nirvana every time.

Now let's translate this to writing. If all you are doing is writing for yourself, than you are absolutely correct -- no critiques necessary except what you yourself deem appropriate. If you are attempting to sell your work in a commercial market, and are having no luck at all (no "nirvana", so to speak) then you would do well to heed your critters.

This is not to say you should ALWAYS listen to your critters -- sometimes people are just way off base and their suggestions would turn your story into something it's not -- some people like vanilla, some people like black leather and ball gags. Differences, Tom, are what make the world go round. However, if you've yet to reach nirvana with any publisher/agent/whatever you've taken your story to, the trouble may be with your technique.

I saw what you posted -- it's not bad. It has the makings of a fine story, especially if it follows the plot you posted in your query. Very entertaining. But your prose is sloppy, Tom. Sloppy as big drooly kisses from my high-school boyfriend. Should you care about my opinion? Only if you're my high school boyfriend...or you want me and my $25 dollars to buy and finish your completed novel, hot off the presses at B&N.

Just my opinion. :)

[HeronW]

>I know you can be taught the mechanics, such as grammar, punctuation, usage, vocabulary. I know you can be taught the general techniques of fiction, but after that, aren't we all on our own?

Only if no one else ever reads what you've written, and only if you never go back to it.

>If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

Our voice changes according to the characters, the story, the genre, our moods, what we're trying to convey. Our voice always is just ours. We can imitate someone else's but never be them. (Case in point: Flowers in the Attic author VC Andrews died years ago but ghostwriters still use her name to keep the incestuous saga going but they are different than the orginal.)

>Ultimately, isn't a writer a writer because of their unique voice? Even if an author chooses to write in completely passive voice, if they think that's how their original story should read, isn't that how the story actually should read?

A 100% completely passive would be very boring. Orwell wrote they way he wanted, bram Stoker wrote Dracula in the 'journal' mode of the day. 'Last of the Mohicans' may be a classic but it's the most boring book I've ever read.

What is taught today may be a style different than that of 50 years ago. How many people can enjoy reading Shakespeare--which is considered modern Eng., or even fewer--Chaucer--which is considered middle Eng.?

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

The opinion is only as good as the weight the author gives the reader. If you don't want opinions, don't let anyone else read what you've written.

Like everyone else, authors have blind spots. We can't see everything we've missed in the MS. It has nothing to do with voice or style, just too much on the plate, esp. with a novel.

If I start out with a white horse and then it's black 200 pgs later, is it my best writing? No. Unless there's a different horse, or it was painted black to fool the race offcials, or it was switched in an alternate universe--I've furked up.

Having a first reader who likes you and reads to see the flaws is a gift. They'll critique the work, not you.

[JeanneTGC]

That is a good point. Afterall, is a story even a work of art if no one reads it?
No.

[argenianpoet]

Yes, all the writing would sound the same, like newspaper news articles. I guess I'm concerned mostly with if it's even possible to critique an original story. If it's original, and if the writer feels it is finished, isn't it perfect?

Perhaps one has to decide if a story is personally original or if the story exists for anyone to find and write on a first come-first serve basis. If a story could potentially belong to anyone, then it can be critiqued and perfected by mass reviews. If it's just between God and the writer, then who could ever add or subtract from it? Even the writer, him or herself: if they know they've taken it as far as they can, even they should not be allowed to change it. Right? No?

I will say this: If you're writing for you then write it the way you think it should be. However, it may never be published, but that was not your point anyway, right? We don't live in times past anymore where anything goes and we have an editor to edit for us. No, we are not that fortunate. We live in a time that if you desire publication you MUST follow the rules! That's the way it goes. If the novel you've written will never be sent to literary agents or publishers (what few will accept unsolicted manuscrpts) then it's perfect in passive voice, because it satisfies you. If you're wanting to publish it then you'll have to satisfy the agent/publisher and that will mean rewriting nine times out of ten.

So then, tell me, what is your intention?

[seun]

I don't think that's a very nice thing to say. I don't see a way to report a comment to a moderator, and it probably wouldn't do any good, but that's not a very nice thing to say in a civilized discussion. That's pretty insulting.


If you want to report it, click on the triangle with the exclamation mark. It needed to be said simply because you keep coming back with pretentious crap like that either just to annoy people or because you genuinely believe it. Which is just scary.

[DonnaDuck]

Is there a reason why the notion of critters has gotten so metaphysical and existential? The only author that I know of that's pretentious enough to feel that she doesn't need her work to be edited is Anne Rice and lord knows I've tried but the furtest I got in her works is The Vampire Lestat. I guess the term 'overwriting' isn't in her vocabulary.

Your work needs to be edited. Period.

Your work is not perfect the second it transcends from your brain to the keyboard/pen. Period.

By design, humans are flawed therefore nothing we make is perfect. Period.

Get over it. If you want other people to read your work, you cater to them. If you don't give a shit about what they think then don't expect anyone else to read your work unless you force it upon them physically. If you want to be a writer, deal with the critcism. Don't like it? Stop writing or, at the very least don't even bother attempting to publish your work because, more often than not you'll be shat upon more often than you're praised.

[scarletpeaches]

I think the sex analogy boils down to this:

When it comes down to writing, do you want to make love to your readers and have them come back for more? Do you want to give them multiple chapters? Do you want them to rave to their friends about how you give good book?

Or do you want to be a literary wanker who's only concerned with their own satisfaction, someone who's so bad at typing one-handed, no-one ever wants to pay to see your ejaculations?

[Edward G]

I saw what you posted -- it's not bad. It has the makings of a fine story, especially if it follows the plot you posted in your query. Very entertaining. But your prose is sloppy, Tom. Sloppy as big drooly kisses from my high-school boyfriend. Should you care about my opinion? Only if you're my high school boyfriend...or you want me and my $25 dollars to buy and finish your completed novel, hot off the presses at B&N.

Just my opinion. :)

What can I say? Sorry you didn't like it. That's the way I write. You won't pay the $25. I can respect that. But then you won't know how the story ends. If that doesn't matter to you--how the story ends--then no amount of tidying up I do with the prose is going to work. Right?

[scarletpeaches]

No, you got that the wrong way round - it's not the case that no amount of tidying up will make someone read on if they're not interested.

Tidying up and correcting and improving WILL make people more likely to read your book.

But if you're not going to change anything, why bother posting in SYW?

Aren't you already certain you have The Great Story? What do you need us for?

[Bubastes]

What can I say? Sorry you didn't like it. That's the way I write. You won't pay the $25. I can respect that. But then you won't know how the story ends. If that doesn't matter to you--how the story ends--then no amount of tidying up I do with the prose is going to work. Right?

Wrong. Revising helps your words get out of the story's way, if that makes any sense. If the story means that much to you, then it's worth it to polish the words so that the story can shine right through them.

[Edward G]

Like everyone else, authors have blind spots. We can't see everything we've missed in the MS. It has nothing to do with voice or style, just too much on the plate, esp. with a novel.

If I start out with a white horse and then it's black 200 pgs later, is it my best writing? No. Unless there's a different horse, or it was painted black to fool the race offcials, or it was switched in an alternate universe--I've furked up.

Now, that's very true. That kind of editing, the kind that looks for inaccuracies, spelling, grammar, inconsistencies, that's essential. But you can hire an editor for that. I'm basically talking about critiques like the one above that says, "The prose is sloppy." Punctuation, basic grammar, inconsistencies, inaccuracies. This kind of editing is part of the building process of writing in the English language, but individual style is the art. Right?

[Bufty]

I couldn't care less how your story ends, nor even what it is about because it seems you couldn't care less whether it's well written or not. Why don't you just write instead of having me and others waste our time reading about you swathed in sackcloth and ashes while wallowing in your literary browbeating which seems to be going nowhere fast.

ETA - Re your following post - You've taken all this waffle to arrive at such an obvious conclusion.!!!!!!!!???????????

What can I say? Sorry you didn't like it. That's the way I write. You won't pay the $25. I can respect that. But then you won't know how the story ends. If that doesn't matter to you--how the story ends--then no amount of tidying up I do with the prose is going to work. Right?

[Edward G]

I will say this: If you're writing for you then write it the way you think it should be. However, it may never be published, but that was not your point anyway, right? We don't live in times past anymore where anything goes and we have an editor to edit for us. No, we are not that fortunate. We live in a time that if you desire publication you MUST follow the rules! That's the way it goes. If the novel you've written will never be sent to literary agents or publishers (what few will accept unsolicted manuscrpts) then it's perfect in passive voice, because it satisfies you. If you're wanting to publish it then you'll have to satisfy the agent/publisher and that will mean rewriting nine times out of ten.

So then, tell me, what is your intention?

Everything you have said is absolutely true. And I must state what my intention is from the beginning. I cannot be free if I write for publication. I cannot be an artist if I am bound by the rules--not the kind of artist I want to be anyway. This next novel then, before I lay down the first word, I must decide if it is for third-party publication or not.

Thank you. This is where I think I needed to get to.

[Bubastes]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one's around to hear it, does it make a sound?

ETA: I'll repeat my earlier recommendation: take yourself out of the equation. The story doesn't care if you consider yourself an artist. You are a servant to the story, not the other way around, and your job is to make it the best it can become. Of course, I'm assuming that you DO care about the story as a separate entity. If writing IS all about you, then ignore everything I've written and keep on doing what you're doing.

[Edward G]

No, you got that the wrong way round - it's not the case that no amount of tidying up will make someone read on if they're not interested.

Tidying up and correcting and improving WILL make people more likely to read your book.

But if you're not going to change anything, why bother posting in SYW?

Aren't you already certain you have The Great Story? What do you need us for?

I never said I wrote a great story. And I had never posted to SYW before, so I didn't know what the experience would bring. But it has brought me to a very important point. I have to decide at the verge of this next novel whether or not I want it published. I am leaning toward just saying, no.

[scarletpeaches]

See, it's not a question of whether or not you want it published, but rather - does anyone else want to publish it? If not, then your opinion is irrelevant. If they do, then I bet you'd soon change your mind about writing for yourself!

[Edward G]

Wrong. Revising helps your words get out of the story's way, if that makes any sense. If the story means that much to you, then it's worth it to polish the words so that the story can shine right through them.


OK, look at it this way: compared to a pyramid, gothic architecture with gargoyles, spires, and flying butresses is completely unnecessary and inefficient. Which spire should we knock off to get the church to look more like a pyramid? See my point?

The words I used in this original story is the words that were used. Which ones should I cut off? Because I don't think I should cut off any. If I did, I never would have sent it out to agents and put it on SYW. To me, it's as good as it gets.

[scarletpeaches]

To YOU maybe, but you're not an agent.

[IceCreamEmpress]

OK, look at it this way: compared to a pyramid, gothic architecture with gargoyles, spires, and flying butresses is completely unnecessary and inefficient. Which spire should we knock off to get the church to look more like a pyramid? See my point?


A cathedral that's built ineptly falls down, no matter how grandiose the plan for the building might be. Either nobody will want to go inside the cathedral, because it looks like a heap of rubble, or people will go inside and then flee screaming when a keystone drops out of an arch and smashes on the floor inches away from their feet.

See my point?


Seriously, if you want to write exactly what you want to write, for yourself and your friends, then you go for it! I'm of Dr. Johnson's school on this topic (http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/268), but that's just my opinion.

But what do you expect to get from this board? You don't want help with improving your writing, and you don't want tips and strategies on getting your writing published. It seems like this place would be a waste of your time.

[Bufty]

.OK, look at it this way: compared to a pyramid, gothic architecture with gargoyles, spires, and flying butresses is completely unnecessary and inefficient. Which spire should we knock off to get the church to look more like a pyramid? See my point? As you have expressed it here? Frankly -no.

The words I used in this original story is the words that were used. Which ones should I cut off? Because I don't think I should cut off any. If I did, I never would have sent it out to agents and put it on SYW. To me, it's as good as it gets. Super. Hope the next one is just as good.

[TrickyFiction]

If the story means that much to you, then it's worth it to polish the words so that the story can shine right through them.

I'm quoting this for truth. Sometimes, we have such a love affair with our words, we forget how they can get in the way. They can distract and push readers out of the story. Because we live in our stories and it's so hard for us to climb out of them, we imagine it must be that difficult for readers too, but it isn't. Readers are as easily distracted as little children. I know this because I'm a reader, too. Words can overpower the story. And, I think a good writer knows how to serve the story over their own words.

[Edward G]

But what do you expect to get from this board? You don't want help with improving your writing, and you don't want tips and strategies on getting your writing published. It seems like this place would be a waste of your time.

I never said I didn't want help with improving. I never said I didn't want tips and strategies. I've just been debating the possibility of it, whether one artist can really improve another artist, or simply ruin them. I've been debating in this string and I have been helped a great deal.

I don't know if there's a lot left to get out of this string, but I sure get a lot out of participating in the group.

[scarletpeaches]

Of course one artist can help another. You read the Bible, don't you? By iron, iron itself is sharpened.

[Will Lavender]

OK, look at it this way: compared to a pyramid, gothic architecture with gargoyles, spires, and flying butresses is completely unnecessary and inefficient. Which spire should we knock off to get the church to look more like a pyramid? See my point?

The words I used in this original story is the words that were used. Which ones should I cut off? Because I don't think I should cut off any. If I did, I never would have sent it out to agents and put it on SYW. To me, it's as good as it gets.

Tom, you get way too philosophical about your work.

Writing is meant for an audience. It isn't meant for you.

Once you settle that fact with yourself, you'll be much better off. Until then, you're just going to drive yourself mad with theories and hypotheses that, frankly, are a bunch of bullshit.

Good luck. You seem like a pretty smart guy, and your posts are cleanly written and fun to read. But you're getting what writing novels is really about almost astoundingly wrong.

[JeanneTGC]

I never said I didn't want help with improving. I never said I didn't want tips and strategies. I've just been debating the possibility of it, whether one artist can really improve another artist, or simply ruin them. I've been debating in this string and I have been helped a great deal.

I don't know if there's a lot left to get out of this string, but I sure get a lot out of participating in the group.
When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

Only an open mind, including an artistic mind, can get something from another mind.

[TrickyFiction]

When the student is ready, the teacher appears.

No kidding. I just learned a whole hell of a lot about pacing just by listening to Beethoven's 9th. Good lessons are all around.

[dempsey]

:popcorn:

[Mel]

The heavy mist parts
Bright sun blinds
An artist arises

::pass the popcorn, please::

[DonnaDuck]

Note to Tom: How about you stop wasting perfectly good brain function pandering over the existential meaning of literary critiquing and just write your damn book? I'm sure you could have cranked out 20,000 worries in the amount of time it's taken you to cycle back around on the theories of writing. It's like trying to figure out why the platypus exists. Who the hell cares? It does, it's there, moving on now.

You either want help or you don't but for the love of everything that is holy, no one (obviously) gives a flying monkey's testicle what the Derridadic meaning of beta readers are. Why? Because there isn't one. They exist to help you. FULL FUCKING STOP. If you don't want their help then don't get pissy at them for picking out inconsistencies in your writing when you posted it in a forum that allows for such things to occur. That's like getting angry at someone that punches you in the face when you told them to do it. You say you want to improve yet you think your words are perfect as is. Slightly oxymoronic, no?

You're setting yourself up at such a high level of pomposity that, in my opinion, it's only going to hinder you. That's super that you think your words are perfect but don't expect much beyond that. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, dude, and you're expending energy that could be much more worthwhile if used elsewhere. You're not emo, are you?

[Monkey]

I'll tell you what my problem is. I posted in SYW and was criticized.

Imagine that!

You posted your work in a forum set up specifically for critique, and you received critique? Mind boggling. Or numbing, as the case may be.



Some say I shouldn't have used this phrase or that description, and I want to scream: Then you write the damn story! Oh, you can't because you didn't think of it!

If you were my child, I'd send you to your room for that. :D


I admit that's an immature way to look at criticism, but that's what got me thinking I'm not skilled enough to write my next novel, which is very important to me.

If you aren't skilled enough yet, then get that way. Posting in SYW is a great way to learn. Rather than realizing your work isn't perfect and deciding that that means you'll never be perfect or that you shouldn't even bother beginning your next novel, why not use the resources that are being offered? Use SYW to improve your writing. That's what I do. That's what a lot of us do.


It's very important that I do it well.

Then take the time to hone your craft. Be open to learning. You can start by going back and revising work that you've already done. If you think it's perfect, then post it. You'll find new ways in which the work can be improved. That's a good thing. It may also make work that was previously unpublishable good enough to be shelved at B&N. It could happen. :)



That's when I began to wonder: If the story is given to an individual and that individual only, then they can't really screw it up, can they?

Sure they can.

Ever tell a joke and screw up on the punchline? The joke may be a riot, but if your delivery is off, then no one's going to laugh.

Your story may be fantastic, and it may be one that only you can tell. But if your delivery is flawed, few people are going to stick around to read the whole thing, and even if they do, they may never understand the real brilliance behind the words. Delivery and skill matter!


It would be like criticizing a child for the way he or she looks. One can't criticize, that's just the way the kid looks.

No. It's like criticizing the way a child is dressed.

Look at it this way: you are saying your story is what it is. That's like the child's physical appearance.

We are saying that the words themselves must be presentable or no one's going to pay attention to the great story underneath. That's like telling a child to put on his little tux before he goes to Aunt Martha's wedding.

Physical traits aren't easily changed, but clothing is. The underlying story is sort of the point, and not easy to change...but the grammar and mechanics are quite malleable.


How can a work be criticized?

Check out the SYW section, or any negative review ever written. It's easy, really. And sometimes it's even fun. :tongue


You said you had to decide whether or not you were going to seek publication before you started your next novel. I think that's utterly false.

Write your story. Write as well as you can, but get it all out there. Then, once you're finished you can worry about publication. If it has problems, simply acknowledge those problems and fix them. You don't have to scrap the whole thing. If it isn't a typical genre, that's not a barrier to publication. Heck, go the small press route if you must. But if you're writing something "for publication" and not pouring your heart out onto the page, chances are it won't be publishable...whereas if you're writing something because you believe in the story and you're willing to edit, you have a much better chance.

Now go write something. :)

[Monkey]

You either want help or you don't but for the love of everything that is holy, no one (obviously) gives a flying monkey's testicle what the Derridadic meaning of beta readers are.

I don't even HAVE testicles, thank you. :tongue

[DonnaDuck]

I don't even HAVE testicles, thank you. :tongue


Flying monkey's labia???

[scarletpeaches]

I'm the only one on this site who can't be taught anything.

I are already knowing it all.

Bow down before teh glory of m'genius, thankyouplease.

[DonnaDuck]

I feel . . . like a Whack-A-Mole . . .

[JeanneTGC]

You can lead a gasping horse to water, but you can't make him realize how idiotic he looks when he poops in it.

Or something like that...

[Toothpaste]

Tom I also think you are looking at critiques in the wrong way. You see them as someone coming in and messing around with your perfect prose. Seeing as you agree that there is always a need for tweaking, you know your prose cannot be perfect. In fact you would be hard pressed to point out anything perfect.

Editing is part of the artistic process. It makes the work BETTER. It isn't only about making a work sellable to an audience (which you seem to be intent on focussing on), but about making your story, the one you intend to write, truly stand out. Are you telling me that everytime you write something you say exactly what you meant to say? Are you telling me that you don't reread some of your posts here and think, maybe I could have phrased that better?

You say you would lose your voice if you listened to editors. You know what makes a real artist? Someone who can keep their voice, can keep the spirit of their work, yet at the same time have the humility to know that art is not created in a vacuum, that others have wisdom and can see and help and improve his art. To be able to keep a unique voice while still being able to take very sound advice (to know how to distinguish between sound and silly advice in and of itself), to be able to learn, grow, evolve, and most importantly listen, that is the ultimate artist.

You can call yourself an artist. But I'd like to see you prove it quite frankly, and not just tell me.


Oh.

And . . .

1984.

The book you absolutely adore?

I have news for you.

Had an editor.

[kuwisdelu]

Warning: some adult content....

Very good point. But we usually don't want a critique afterwards. The way we do it is the way we do it. The last thing I want is for someone to say, "Could you please do it like this other guy used to do it?"

No, I wouldn't want that. But if I'm doing something wrong, I certainly want to know about it. If my wife says "a little higher," then I'm not going to say "my finger's in the right place and you'll enjoy it!" which seems to be what you're doing.

What can I say? Sorry you didn't like it. That's the way I write. You won't pay the $25. I can respect that. But then you won't know how the story ends. If that doesn't matter to you--how the story ends--then no amount of tidying up I do with the prose is going to work. Right?

Actually, quite the contrary. There must be a thousand books out there I've picked up, read the back cover and said "that looks like a good story!" Then I read the first couple pages and couldn't get past the badly-written prose. I may actually want to know how the story ends--just not nearly badly enough to wade through a lot of sloppy prose to figure it out.

And I'm going to have to join everyone else in saying: STOP TRYING TO FIND FERMAT'S LAST THEOREM IN BETA READERS AND THEIR CRITIQUES. It's not there. It never was there. Don't look for it.

[Thrillride]

kuwisdelu - "No, I wouldn't want that. But if I'm doing something wrong, I certainly want to know about it. If my wife says "a little higher," then I'm not going to say "my finger's in the right place and you'll enjoy it!" which seems to be what you're doing."

Not to mention, you wouldn't want her to say, "Could you please do it like the other guy used to do it?"

Hehe. Okay, I'm going now.

~Thrill

[Edward G]

Tom I also think you are looking at critiques in the wrong way. You see them as someone coming in and messing around with your perfect prose. Seeing as you agree that there is always a need for tweaking, you know your prose cannot be perfect. In fact you would be hard pressed to point out anything perfect.

Editing is part of the artistic process. It makes the work BETTER. It isn't only about making a work sellable to an audience (which you seem to be intent on focussing on), but about making your story, the one you intend to write, truly stand out. Are you telling me that everytime you write something you say exactly what you meant to say? Are you telling me that you don't reread some of your posts here and think, maybe I could have phrased that better?

You say you would lose your voice if you listened to editors. You know what makes a real artist? Someone who can keep their voice, can keep the spirit of their work, yet at the same time have the humility to know that art is not created in a vacuum, that others have wisdom and can see and help and improve his art. To be able to keep a unique voice while still being able to take very sound advice (to know how to distinguish between sound and silly advice in and of itself), to be able to learn, grow, evolve, and most importantly listen, that is the ultimate artist.

You can call yourself an artist. But I'd like to see you prove it quite frankly, and not just tell me.


Oh.

And . . .

1984.

The book you absolutely adore?

I have news for you.

Had an editor.

First off, I understand it's easier to think I'm calling my work perfect. That way what I'm saying can be easily defeated. However, I'm not saying my work is perfect. I'm asking if it is. I'm asking in here, I'm asking myself, and I'm asking God. It may be that the very act of revision is wrong, in a purist sense. I am seriously considering that given the importance to me of my next novel that I may establish a rule that it can never be published by a third party and it can only have a rough draft.

Like Jackson Pollock, perhaps I will deny the accident. I will deny that the spelling errors and punctuation errors are even mistakes, but rather that there are no accidents. Every part of it is intended. Maybe I will not back off on it. Maybe against all the tongue-waggers and critics and scoffers, I will never back down but instead be able to say that this one book I wrote was pure. It was what God wanted me to do.

After that, I'll write my zombie thriller that I wanted to write. Or one about a young boy who haunts a Louisiana swamp, and I'll do both of them for commercial success. But the one book that matters the most, I will never have compromised on.

What do you think about that? Is that insane?

[Cranky]

First off, I understand it's easier to think I'm calling my work perfect. That way what I'm saying can be easily defeated. However, I'm not saying my work is perfect. I'm asking if it is. I'm asking in here, I'm asking myself, and I'm asking God. It may be that the very act of revision is wrong, in a purist sense. I am seriously considering that given the importance to me of my next novel that I may establish a rule that it can never be published by a third party and it can only have a rough draft.

Like Jackson Pollock, perhaps I will deny the accident. I will deny that the spelling errors and punctuation errors are even mistakes, but rather that there are no accidents. Every part of it is intended. Maybe I will not back off on it. Maybe against all the tongue-waggers and critics and scoffers, I will never back down but instead be able to say that this one book I wrote was pure. It was what God wanted me to do.

After that, I'll write my zombie thriller that I wanted to write. Or one about a young boy who haunts a Louisiana swamp, and I'll do both of them for commercial success. But the one book that matters the most, I will never have compromised on.

What do you think about that? Is that insane?

I don't know if I'd call it insanity...I think I'd call it artistic hubris. Whatever floats your boat, man. Personally, I want people read my work and enjoy it, and if that means I have to revise the heck out of it for people to understand what I'm saying, then that's what I have to do.

If they don't get what I'm saying, it's not necessarily a lack of comprehension on their part...it's more often a lack of clarity on my own.

[Monkey]

:sigh:

Wouldn't it be wrong to only put out the minimum effort necessary to have a completed first draft? I mean if GOD told me to write something, I'd want it to be as close to perfect as possible. If GOD told me to write something, I'd certainly put more effort into it than I put into my Nano novel.

What is so terrible about tweaking? Editing? Revising?

Did you even read my earlier post?

Next, on "As My Head Spins"...

[Toothpaste]

Hon, you've asked the question many times now in this thread. The answer is that while maybe not insane, it definitely isn't the most lucid way of thinking at least that I've encountered. You've also asked if your work is perfect. Obviously considering people have given you critiques, it isn't. Ah, but do these critiques matter, you then ask. Well, I think the question you are really looking for is, what defines a work as perfect? Is it the opinions of others, or of the person who created the work?

Or maybe, just maybe . . . there is no such thing as perfection.

If you want to write this one book, if you never want it to be tarnished by a third party (which is such an ugly view I have to say that you have of the world, really prideful and arrogant), then it is well within your right to only ever have it as a rough draft. My goodness no one is stopping you from doing whatever you darn well please with it. If it makes you happy, if it makes you feel like you've fulfilled a purpose greater than yourself, then by all means do what you want to.

But what is art my friend? Can art exist when no one else is there to appreciate it? Isn't art about creating a dialogue, about moving others, about something more than just the individual who created it? Can art truly be perfect if no one but the artist gets to experience it?

[TrickyFiction]

Can art exist when no one else is there to appreciate it?

Masturbatory art can.

[Edward G]

It's the holy grail of writing, isn't it? To be accepted by someone in the publishing industry, especially if they'll prove that acceptance with some serious cash. We base our entire self-concept on it. We are nothing if we are not good writers and we are only good writers if the publishing industry says we are. If they let us in.

And who are "they"? Aren't the the girl or guy who did really well in English in high school, maybe they edited the yearbook. Then they went to college and they were slammed by a teacher or they realized the absolute risk to the self-esteem of actually inventing a story and putting it out there. Maybe they traded a lack of talent for a key to the gate that lets writers in. They became editors and agents. What could be better, if you can't actually do it than to have those who can begging at your feet to make them feel worthy as human beings?

I'm ranting, I know, but this is how it feels to me. Doesn't it ever feel that way to you? And granted, I'm reading Animal Farm right now, so I'm feeling a little revolutionary. Just call me Napoleon.

[Toothpaste]

Hon, my questions were sincere. Had nothing to do with the publishing world, in fact I thought I was working very well within the framework you had presented.

Let me put it to you this way, how do you define art? Personally I have already described what I think it is, as a dialogue, as something meant to transport someone else, and not just the individual who creates it. But you may see it differently. So I ask you, in all sincerity, what is art to you?

ETA: You are reading Animal Farm. It was published. You get to appreciate it and feel revolutionary because of it. Are you saying publishing in general is evil, or only publishing in this day and age. You would not have any of the inspirations you write about had they not been published. Not even the Bible.

ETAA: The Bible btw was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Only great scholars could read it. It was translated into english (and other languages) in order that the people could also appreciate the word of God. The Bible . . . was edited.

[Monkey]

It's the holy grail of writing, isn't it? To be accepted by someone in the publishing industry, especially if they'll prove that acceptance with some serious cash.

Pretty much. For some of us, though not all.

We base our entire self-concept on it.

Speak for yourself. I am a writer, published or not, but other than that, I am many other things. I identify stronger with "mother", for instance, than "author".

We are nothing if we are not good writers

What the hell are you talking about?

and we are only good writers if the publishing industry says we are. If they let us in.

Or unless we are, like, really good writers, and stuff.

And who are "they"? Aren't the the girl or guy who did really well in English in high school, maybe they edited the yearbook. Then they went to college and they were slammed by a teacher or they realized the absolute risk to the self-esteem of actually inventing a story and putting it out there. Maybe they traded a lack of talent for a key to the gate that lets writers in. They became editors and agents. What could be better, if you can't actually do it than to have those who can begging at your feet to make them feel worthy as human beings?

What nasty, baseless assumptions. And about so many people, too.

I'm ranting, I know, but this is how it feels to me. Doesn't it ever feel that way to you?
No.

And granted, I'm reading Animal Farm right now, so I'm feeling a little revolutionary. Just call me Napoleon.

Stop yer squeeling and write something, Napoleon. :)

[kuwisdelu]

What do you think about that? Is that insane?

Do what you want. It makes no sense to me. I still view the stuff I wrote that's been edited as "pure." I didn't compromise any of the story or the voice by the corrections I made. I just made it better. If things weren't meant to be improved, we wouldn't have evolution. I don't think I'm any less pure than a monkey.

In fact, I'd like to think I'm a little better than a monkey. I don't throw my poo at people, and I don't care if poo-throwing is pure or not--I'm not a fan. If I had to choose between being impure and being a poo-thrower, I think I'd go with impure.

[Edward G]

:sigh:

Wouldn't it be wrong to only put out the minimum effort necessary to have a completed first draft? I mean if GOD told me to write something, I'd want it to be as close to perfect as possible. If GOD told me to write something, I'd certainly put more effort into it than I put into my Nano novel.

What is so terrible about tweaking? Editing? Revising?

Did you even read my earlier post?

Next, on "As My Head Spins"...

I'm not saying it should be done all the time. I just think I may need to do it with my most important work. Not everything has to be for the fleeting tastes of others. Not everything has to be for sale. And of course, I've read all your posts in this string.

[Toothpaste]

Did you read my latest post though?

[Monkey]

<snip>I don't think I'm any less pure than a monkey.

In fact, I'd like to think I'm a little better than a monkey. I don't throw my poo at people, and I don't care if poo-throwing is pure or not--I'm not a fan. If I had to choose between being impure and being a poo-thrower, I think I'd go with impure.

Excuse me? I resemble that remark. We don't have to bring my personal habits into this...

:D

[kuwisdelu]

Masturbatory art can.

Sadly, sometimes the best ejaculations occur when there's no one around to record them...

[kuwisdelu]

Excuse me? I resemble that remark. We don't have to bring my personal habits into this...

:D

It's okay. Your poo smells like cinnamon. :tongue

Besides, you're more "pure." :D

[Cranky]

Sadly, sometimes the best ejaculations occur when there's no one around to record them...

*choke*

:roll:

[Bekah]

What if all of the mistakes are "meant" to be there? Seriously? What if you discover you've had your fingers on the wrong keys for a few lines, or pages? What if you write that a character "crapped" open a book instead of "cracked" it open, as I did a while back? (Though, beings that you're talking about basically crapping out a book and calling it golden, I guess you could call that one a Freudian slip if you did it.) But I guess if your book's divinely inspired, you don't have to worry about typos.

I think God wants us to do whatever we do well. Just because writing is an art, you're acting as if laziness is a virtue where it's concerned. Do you feel that way about every job/vocation/etc.? If a child was told to clean his room and did it poorly, "But I meant to just cram everything in the closet! It's ingenious!" wouldn't be an excuse. If someone's idea of great mothering was to strap her kid into a bouncy seat, prop up a bottle, and leave it in front of the television for eight hours straight, that wouldn't be acceptable. If a surgeon said, "Sorry I lopped off the wrong leg, but as you know, there's no such thing as a mistake!" would that be just fine and dandy?

On a more artistic level, would you find it acceptable if a chef ignored what his customers requested, served them whatever he wanted, and then pouted and raged when they weren't pleased? Is masturbation more "pure" than sex, because you only have to please yourself? Does your wife's involvement, and the idea of making it enjoyable for her, somehow sully the "art" of getting your rocks off?

[Edward G]

Hon, you've asked the question many times now in this thread. The answer is that while maybe not insane, it definitely isn't the most lucid way of thinking at least that I've encountered. You've also asked if your work is perfect. Obviously considering people have given you critiques, it isn't. Ah, but do these critiques matter, you then ask. Well, I think the question you are really looking for is, what defines a work as perfect? Is it the opinions of others, or of the person who created the work?

Or maybe, just maybe . . . there is no such thing as perfection.

Is that what you belielve? That there will never be perfection in our work? If so, then why bother going beyond the rough draft? And I realize I'm belabouring the point. But lots of people seem to like this string, and I like talking with them about these hypotheticals, because it does move me along. It provides me with a philosophical framework. And I appreciate the input I've gotten, and that you have given.

If you want to write this one book, if you never want it to be tarnished by a third party (which is such an ugly view I have to say that you have of the world, really prideful and arrogant), then it is well within your right to only ever have it as a rough draft. My goodness no one is stopping you from doing whatever you darn well please with it. If it makes you happy, if it makes you feel like you've fulfilled a purpose greater than yourself, then by all means do what you want to.

But what is art my friend? Can art exist when no one else is there to appreciate it? Isn't art about creating a dialogue, about moving others, about something more than just the individual who created it? Can art truly be perfect if no one but the artist gets to experience it?

Your last sentence is truly a hard question. I actually think it is a metaphysical question of the highest order. I don't know how to answer it yet. But it is important to me that it be answered.

[megan_d]

So... You want your work to be perfect? But you don't want to edit it? But you want it to be published? But not by the publishing industry? But you want people to read it? But you don't want them to have anything negative to say?

I'm confused.

[kuwisdelu]

Is that what you belielve? That there will never be perfection in our work? If so, then why bother going beyond the rough draft?


It's really not so strange. I don't think you can ever get to perfect, either. In anything.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try. I can certainly get much, much, much closer by editing it.

Remember how Michelangelo talked about seeing the statue trapped inside the marble, and he only had to use his chisel to free it? Think of a novel like that. The rough draft is your first round with the chisel, but you don't manage to get the idea completely freed of the marble. You edit it--you chisel away a little more, freeing the parts that you may have missed before. And even when you THINK have it completely free, it's still pretty rough-looking. So you take it to your beta readers who help you polish it. Get it now?

If you stopped with the rough draft, you leave the best, purest form of your idea still trapped beneath layers of bad writing. Or marble.

[Edward G]

Hon, my questions were sincere. Had nothing to do with the publishing world, in fact I thought I was working very well within the framework you had presented.

You are, and I appreciate it. It is helping; slowly I am beginning to see things more clearly. And I appreciate you taking this mad ride with me, because I can imagine it is frustrating and that I have become like a psychotic you're trying to teach how to brush his ragged teeth.

Let me put it to you this way, how do you define art? Personally I have already described what I think it is, as a dialogue, as something meant to transport someone else, and not just the individual who creates it. But you may see it differently. So I ask you, in all sincerity, what is art to you?

People get offended if I talk about God or Christ, but I have to to answer this question. And I have to answer this question for my own sake. When God creates something, be it a quark, a law of physics, or his own perfect Son, it is a completely original work. I am a completely original work, as you are, and the others in here. We are art. So, for me art, above all else is completely an original creation of the artist. The artist makes it and declares that it is finished. I have been to the Tate Gallery in London, and to many other art galleries in the U.S. I have seen amazing painting, some so realistic they are more real than a photograph. I have also seen abstract modern art, the end of which I think was with Jackson Pollock. I love his work. It is the most original work possible. For me, art is about the original creation. That is the definition for me. And I completely respect your definition. I understand what you mean. I just can't get away from my definition.

Thank you for asking the question and forcing me to examine it. You have helped me grow as an artist.

ETA: You are reading Animal Farm. It was published. You get to appreciate it and feel revolutionary because of it. Are you saying publishing in general is evil, or only publishing in this day and age. You would not have any of the inspirations you write about had they not been published. Not even the Bible.

ETAA: The Bible btw was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Only great scholars could read it. It was translated into english (and other languages) in order that the people could also appreciate the word of God. The Bible . . . was edited.

True.

[Edward G]

Stop yer squeeling and write something, Napoleon. :)

LOL:)

[TrickyFiction]

Tom, I honestly think, the more I read what you write, that you are not so much a storyteller as a philosopher. I don't mean that as an insult either. I have great respect for philosophers. It just kind of hit me... An, "Oh, I get it," moment.

[JeanneTGC]

God suggested I mention that hubris is considered a sin. And pride goeth before the fall. And comparing yourself TO God and insinuating that you can be as perfect as God is also, shocker alert, a sin. There were ten biggies -- written down and shared -- and then a whole slew of lessers -- also written down and shared.

I'm just passing that along, from one of the most frequently published books over the last several millenia. Published, edited, read by millions.

I guess Abraham and the Apostles (and all the other writers who combined to create the Bible, and the Torah, and the Koran, and pick any other major religious text) could have kept all that stuff to themselves, to pour over and get off on, while never, ever, letting anyone else see them, to keep them pure.

What an interesting world that might have been...think I'll go write a story about it. I, of course, will edit it and perhaps even send it out for publication if I deem it good enough, but then, I guess I'm just sold on that money-mad concept of writing for someone ELSE to read it.

[Bekah]

People get offended if I talk about God or Christ, but I have to to answer this question. And I have to answer this question for my own sake. When God creates something, be it a quark, a law of physics, or his own perfect Son, it is a completely original work. I am a completely original work, as you are, and the others in here. We are art. So, for me art, above all else is completely an original creation of the artist. The artist makes it and declares that it is finished. I have been to the Tate Gallery in London, and to many other art galleries in the U.S. I have seen amazing painting, some so realistic they are more real than a photograph. I have also seen abstract modern art, the end of which I think was with Jackson Pollock. I love his work. It is the most original work possible. For me, art is about the original creation. That is the definition for me. And I completely respect your definition. I understand what you mean. I just can't get away from my definition.

The thing is, God's able to do something and immediately call it "good," because he's God. We're not God. Jesus commanded us to be perfect as he is perfect, and as humans, we can't just announce, "Okay, here I am! I am perfect!" We have to work at it. (Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, etc.)

If creative arts are an imitation of God's creation, then they're a feeble attempt at their very best. Like the rest of life, it's all a struggle. The goal is to come as close as we can. Roses aren't going to bloom from your pencil the moment you set it to paper, any more than a star appears when you shout, "Let there be light!" Man works by the sweat of his brow--or the ache of his carpal tunnel, if he's a writer, I guess. ;)

[Edward G]

What if all of the mistakes are "meant" to be there? Seriously? What if you discover you've had your fingers on the wrong keys for a few lines, or pages? What if you write that a character "crapped" open a book instead of "cracked" it open, as I did a while back? (Though, beings that you're talking about basically crapping out a book and calling it golden, I guess you could call that one a Freudian slip if you did it.) But I guess if your book's divinely inspired, you don't have to worry about typos.

I think God wants us to do whatever we do well. Just because writing is an art, you're acting as if laziness is a virtue where it's concerned. Do you feel that way about every job/vocation/etc.? If a child was told to clean his room and did it poorly, "But I meant to just cram everything in the closet! It's ingenious!" wouldn't be an excuse.

I'm sorry, but if a kid said that to me, I'd be speechless. If he said, "Beat me as hard as you will, but I will not compromise my sculpture in the closet!" I'd give him a scholarship. True story: I was in first grade, and we had to make a fingerpainting. I screwed up, so I started making this total mess on the paper. The teacher comes along and asks what my picture is, and I start explaining how this yellow arrow shape was shot up and hit the sun and the sun exploded, and all the stuff came out..." I went on and on. It was the greatest work of art I've ever done. I swear to God.


If someone's idea of great mothering was to strap her kid into a bouncy seat, prop up a bottle, and leave it in front of the television for eight hours straight, that wouldn't be acceptable. If a surgeon said, "Sorry I lopped off the wrong leg, but as you know, there's no such thing as a mistake!" would that be just fine and dandy?

On a more artistic level, would you find it acceptable if a chef ignored what his customers requested, served them whatever he wanted, and then pouted and raged when they weren't pleased? Is masturbation more "pure" than sex, because you only have to please yourself? Does your wife's involvement, and the idea of making it enjoyable for her, somehow sully the "art" of getting your rocks off?

For one, I don't think sex is art. Two if a chef felt that strongly about her creations, what could be said? Can we say because she is the only one who likes it that it is bad? What about her opinion of it? Finally, if I was lazy as an artist, I wouldn't be tortured by these questions. If I wrote a rough draft only, it would probably end up better than if I revised, because I'd be very focused on doing it right.

[JeanneTGC]

I'm sorry, but if a kid said that to me, I'd be speechless. If he said, "Beat me as hard as you will, but I will not compromise my sculpture in the closet!" I'd give him a scholarship. True story: I was in first grade, and we had to make a fingerpainting. I screwed up, so I started making this total mess on the paper. The teacher comes along and asks what my picture is, and I start explaining how this yellow arrow shape was shot up and hit the sun and the sun exploded, and all the stuff came out..." I went on and on. It was the greatest work of art I've ever done. I swear to God.
I'm having no trouble believing that.

[Edward G]

So... You want your work to be perfect? But you don't want to edit it? But you want it to be published? But not by the publishing industry? But you want people to read it? But you don't want them to have anything negative to say?

I'm confused.

No, you hit it pretty much on the head. I want to create a work, and have it stand on its own. I don't want it supported by an editor who "helps" it. I don't want it written to cater to readers tastes so that it reads the way they want it to. I want it published but only if it is published without being changed by the publishing process. I want independent art.

Idealism? But if I can't have that, then why write? Why not just work at a job to make money to pay for heating and food and shelter and hope life ends before my capacity to stave off suffering for myself and my wife and dogs is exhausted? If art can't be done in defiance of the world, then why not just embrace the world?

[JeanneTGC]

Hug the world, Tom. Hug it. It might hug back, you never know.

[Edward G]

It's really not so strange. I don't think you can ever get to perfect, either. In anything.

But that doesn't mean I'm not going to try. I can certainly get much, much, much closer by editing it.

Remember how Michelangelo talked about seeing the statue trapped inside the marble, and he only had to use his chisel to free it? Think of a novel like that. The rough draft is your first round with the chisel, but you don't manage to get the idea completely freed of the marble. You edit it--you chisel away a little more, freeing the parts that you may have missed before. And even when you THINK have it completely free, it's still pretty rough-looking. So you take it to your beta readers who help you polish it. Get it now?

If you stopped with the rough draft, you leave the best, purest form of your idea still trapped beneath layers of bad writing. Or marble.

Oh, I get it. But if I can't do it without the help of beta readers, then why don't we just make writing a team effort like making a movie? Maybe that's where it's going.

[Edward G]

Tom, I honestly think, the more I read what you write, that you are not so much a storyteller as a philosopher. I don't mean that as an insult either. I have great respect for philosophers. It just kind of hit me... An, "Oh, I get it," moment.

No, I appreciate the observation. But isn't that true of all storytellers? I mean unless the stories are only for entertainment or titilation. Fantasy writers especially. No?

[JeanneTGC]

Always remember -- no matter where you go...there you are.

[Bekah]

I'm sorry, but if a kid said that to me, I'd be speechless. If he said, "Beat me as hard as you will, but I will not compromise my sculpture in the closet!" I'd give him a scholarship.

I take it you don't have kids, and have possibly never met a kid? I'm not talking about some child prodigy, nobly defending his art. I mean the average kid, who throws all of the shit he's supposed to pick up--gym socks, filthy underwear, toys, etc.--into the closet, and jams dirty dishes under the bed, all so he can get back to his video games in under ten minutes. There's no genius in this; it's called laziness.

The sex part shouldn't have been in the paragraph starting "on a more artistic level." Sorry.

Something I'm curious about: are you talking about a different book than the one you posted portions of in SYW? Color me confused if you think God has inspired your ghost story, as intriguing as I found the query.

[Edward G]

God suggested I mention that hubris is considered a sin. And pride goeth before the fall. And comparing yourself TO God and insinuating that you can be as perfect as God is also, shocker alert, a sin. There were ten biggies -- written down and shared -- and then a whole slew of lessers -- also written down and shared.

I'm just passing that along, from one of the most frequently published books over the last several millenia. Published, edited, read by millions.

But of course, Jesus said we should be perfect, even as God is perfect. Most people ignore that verse. It doesn't fit with life very well.

I guess Abraham and the Apostles (and all the other writers who combined to create the Bible, and the Torah, and the Koran, and pick any other major religious text) could have kept all that stuff to themselves, to pour over and get off on, while never, ever, letting anyone else see them, to keep them pure.

What an interesting world that might have been...think I'll go write a story about it. I, of course, will edit it and perhaps even send it out for publication if I deem it good enough, but then, I guess I'm just sold on that money-mad concept of writing for someone ELSE to read it.

Good luck. I'll buy it if you write it.

[Cranky]

No, you hit it pretty much on the head. I want to create a work, and have it stand on its own. I don't want it supported by an editor who "helps" it. I don't want it written to cater to readers tastes so that it reads the way they want it to. I want it published but only if it is published without being changed by the publishing process. I want independent art.

Idealism? But if I can't have that, then why write? Why not just work at a job to make money to pay for heating and food and shelter and hope life ends before my capacity to stave off suffering for myself and my wife and dogs is exhausted? If art can't be done in defiance of the world, then why not just embrace the world?

OK, the lightbulb just went off for me. So -if I am understanding you correctly (always a crapshoot)- you are wanting/expecting to write something so well the first time through that it requires no editing, no finishing touches, nothing.

Just, voila! ART!

And agents will love it (or not) and people will read it in droves (or not), but it will be sublime perfection without having to go back and so much as proofread for typos?

Good luck to you with that...I can't even compose a post on AW without hitting the backspace key about twenty million times.

Then again, I ain't no divinely inspired genius, either. Woe is me.

[kuwisdelu]

Oh, I get it. But if I can't do it without the help of beta readers, then why don't we just make writing a team effort like making a movie? Maybe that's where it's going.

Because a movie has so many elements, it'd be pretty damn difficult to do it all on your own. Sure, you could write the screenplay, make the sets, do the filming, act in it, and direct it all by yourself. But it would be awfully hard on some movies, and simply impossible on others. They're similar in that they're creative outlets that tell stories, but the mediums are very, very different.

As the writer, you have complete creative control. You NEVER have to make a single change that any beta reader suggests. Hell, if you get really lucky, it may actually BE okay without beta readers--but very, very rarely with something as long as a novel. It's not something that happens to most of us.

As the writer, you have the choice to say "No. That would interfere with my artistic vision. I can't make that change."

You have the choice to say "Oh. That IS a problem. I should've seen it myself, but didn't for some reason! Perhaps because I'm still learning... Or perhaps because I can't be completely objective about my own work... Or perhaps simply because it just needed fresh eyes. I ought to correct that."

If a sculptor's assistant says "you forget to finish her nose," and you never realized it because you're temporarily blinded by the sun each time you look up to try to see the statue's face--but your assistant had sunglasses!--then that's not really a team effort is it? It's just help to find mistakes you can't see on your own.

[JeanneTGC]

Good luck. I'll buy it if you write it.
Thanks. But I'll have had beta readers take a looksee. And done a line edit with my crit partner. And run it past my agent for her approval and input. And then have allowed the editor at the publisher's to have their say in it as well. All before you would ever get a chance to buy it.

So, the only way you would be able to buy it is if it goes through the process you seem to be railing against. Or has all your rhetoric confused me, yet again?

[Edward G]

I take it you don't have kids, and have possibly never met a kid? I'm not talking about some child prodigy, nobly defending his art. I mean the average kid, who throws all of the shit he's supposed to pick up--gym socks, filthy underwear, toys, etc.--into the closet, and jams dirty dishes under the bed, all so he can get back to his video games in under ten minutes. There's no genius in this; it's called laziness.

The sex part shouldn't have been in the paragraph starting "on a more artistic level." Sorry.

Something I'm curious about: are you talking about a different book than the one you posted portions of in SYW? Color me confused if you think God has inspired your ghost story, as intriguing as I found the query.

You're right, we don't have any kids. And no, the story is SYW, Caretakers of Eternity, is not the one I'm talking about. I have outlined and researched a new novel that I want to write. I'm in the location now where the setting will be, and in a couple of weeks I'll start the rough draft.

And what we are discussing here is directly related to this new work, because I have to know some things before I type the first word. I can't tell you how beneficial all this has been.

[Edward G]

Thanks. But I'll have had beta readers take a looksee. And done a line edit with my crit partner. And run it past my agent for her approval and input. And then have allowed the editor at the publisher's to have their say in it as well. All before you would ever get a chance to buy it.

So, the only way you would be able to buy it is if it goes through the process you seem to be railing against. Or has all your rhetoric confused me, yet again?

Ah, then it really isn't your story, is it? It's "you all's" story. And I cheat a bit, I suppose, because my wife is my beta reader, if you will, but that doesn't really count because we're one.

Now, you say I'll never get to read it any other way. That was before Kindle Books and the Kindle reader which I believe all fiction will soon be going to. You can publish it, you can let me know about it, and I can download it onto my reader. Will I? Of course, I've talked with you. And here's the rub, and I suspect there will soon be millions of us like this, when I get my reader, I'll never buy fiction in book form again. I will only download it onto my Kindle Reader, or if they come out with some better one.

There's an author in here now, I want to start his Fantasy series, but I probably won't unless the books are published as Kindle Books. You can't even get a Kindle Reader. I probably won't get mine until Feb sometime. We can rail against it, but it is a tidal wave on the horizon. Who knows what implications are inherent in it.

[JeanneTGC]

Ah, then it really isn't your story, is it? It's "you all's" story. And I cheat a bit, I suppose, because my wife is my beta reader, if you will, but that doesn't really count because we're one.
Just like the Bible's "you all's" in terms of being written by many and translated by many more.

This is, in case you're totally confused, how every book out there has ever made it. It's how the classics you're quoting arrived.

Oh, and btw? It would be mine. Just like the Harry Potter books belong to J.K. Rowling or the Discworld series belongs to Terry Pratchett. Both of whom have agents and editors. And just like it is for every other published author out there. You know, the only authors anyone reads? The published ones?

And, since your wife IS your beta reader, then you DO use one. Even if, somehow, you two are a combined and comingled one who think all the same thoughts and do all the same things together. I think the others have covered your potential sex life, so I'll let that one alone.
Now, you say I'll never get to read it any other way.
Actually, I say that you sound like the worst sort of hypocrite, but carry on.
That was before Kindle Books and the Kindle reader which I believe all fiction will soon be going to. You can publish it, you can let me know about it, and I can download it onto my reader. Will I? Of course, I've talked with you. And here's the rub, and I suspect there will soon be millions of us like this, when I get my reader, I'll never buy fiction in book form again. I will only download it onto my Kindle Reader, or if they come out with some better one.

There's an author in here now, I want to start his Fantasy series, but I probably won't unless the books are published as Kindle Books. You can't even get a Kindle Reader. I probably won't get mine until Feb sometime. We can rail against it, but it is a tidal wave on the horizon. Who knows what implications are inherent in it.
OOOOHHHH! Now I get it. You're a Kindle Reader salesman! (Whatever the heck Kindle Readers are. So, um, you're not a very GOOD salesman, but oh well, can't have everything if you're not willing to work to improve your craft, whatever that craft may be.)

It all makes sense now...it's not about philosophy, or being a better writer, or the debate about art versus commerce, or anything else. It's about shilling this Kindle Reader. The "next big thing". Gotcha.

[TrickyFiction]

No, I appreciate the observation. But isn't that true of all storytellers? I mean unless the stories are only for entertainment or titilation. Fantasy writers especially. No?

I don't think so. I used to love philosophy, but I started to hate it after awhile because I became frustrated with the circles. I write fantasy. I do want to say something with it. I mean to say something with it, but I wouldn't consider it philosophy. It doesn't ask enough questions to be philosophy, I believe, although anyone could make philosophy of it. It's a simple matter to make philosophy of Harry Potter, too, but I don't think that's what J.K. had in mind.

[Rolling Thunder]

It's the Gordon/Edward/Geist show all over again. :rolleyes:

[jessicaorr]

Yes, I think to a certain extent, writing can be taught. When another writer critiques your work, they'll be establishing how well your voice carried the message you wanted to send. Sure, they'll suggest you change some things that would make the story less -yours- but some of the suggestions they offer will make the writing clearer, more readable. And if your writing a story that you intend to publish, you want to be read and understood by other human beings. Therefore, it is in your best interest to develop a voice that is both yours and understandable to the reader.

I think you have to compromise. I'd love to write in verbose prose, sentences that endlessly run on, long paragraphs bespeckled with semicolons and commas. And I do, but then I reign myself in and think of the reader. I do want to be read after all :p

[Edward G]

It all makes sense now...it's not about philosophy, or being a better writer, or the debate about art versus commerce, or anything else. It's about shilling this Kindle Reader. The "next big thing". Gotcha.

I'm not a salesman. The Kindle Reader is a very big event in publishing and e-books. I'm sorry you haven't heard of it, but my mentioning it is not a plug for it. You can't buy them anyway, you have to get on a waiting list. I'm just saying that the way it used to be is changing.

To get to the market and be seen, one had to go through a publisher. There was no real access to the market. A self-publisher couldn't get the distribution and had to shell out for the printing. With e-books there's no printing costs, and the distribution is equal to all other books that come out by Amazon. Basically, it's guaranteed shelf space in a big bookstore. What a person does with it from there is up to them.

But this isn't a selling tactic. It's just the way it is. We all have to start thinking about what the world of literature is going to be like when anyone can publish and be distributed.

It will be good and bad I suppose.

[Edward G]

Yes, I think to a certain extent, writing can be taught. When another writer critiques your work, they'll be establishing how well your voice carried the message you wanted to send. Sure, they'll suggest you change some things that would make the story less -yours- but some of the suggestions they offer will make the writing clearer, more readable. And if your writing a story that you intend to publish, you want to be read and understood by other human beings. Therefore, it is in your best interest to develop a voice that is both yours and understandable to the reader.

I think you have to compromise. I'd love to write in verbose prose, sentences that endlessly run on, long paragraphs bespeckled with semicolons and commas. And I do, but then I reign myself in and think of the reader. I do want to be read after all :p

Well, I think you've probably said it well. To write without regard for the reader would be wrong. I agree. But one has to ask who their readers are. If I want to write for certain people, I'd have to make my work a graphic novel. Others, like those who like Umberto Ecco, want their literature at a more intellectual level. So, I agree one has to regard their reader and write for them, but one has to know who they expect their reader to be.

Anyway. I've got a lot out of this string of posts, and I appreciate all those who've given me true insight into some questions that were really bothering me. It seems like it was a pretty hot topic. Again, thanks everyone.

[Bufty]

Quick -lock it!

[DaddyCat]

But this isn't a selling tactic. It's just the way it is. We all have to start thinking about what the world of literature is going to be like when anyone can publish and be distributed.

It will be good and bad I suppose.

I predict a few drops more good and buckets-full more bad.

The Kindle is less a revolution and more an evolution of existing technology. Publishing and distribution are still part of the equation.

[Monkey]

This is actually very sad.

I thought that perhaps Tom was baiting us...but then I went back and read his posts again. I now have a new theory.

Writing means very much to Tom. He feels that it is art, that it's GOD given, and that it has bearing on him as a person. He pours his heart and soul into his work. Later, when people point out mistakes, he wants to scream and rail against them. It hurts. Bad. It also shakes his confidence in his work.

(This isn't really conjecture. You can look back through his posts and see each of these points plainly spelled out. The next bit has a bit more conjecture, but is also supported in his posts. As I was saying: )

Once that confidence is shaken, the difficulties of snagging an agent and then a publisher seem insurmountable. An impossible task. And yet, he feels that his work needs that validation; he craves it. He wishes that he could post his work to SYW and get positive feedback that would show him that, yes, he really could achieve publication with a major publisher. Instead, he gets heart-wrenching, ego-deflating critique. It all seems hopeless.

So what does Tom do? He rejects the system that he feels is destined to reject him. If he never submits his manuscript to the publishing industry, then it can never be rejected. He can always say that his greatest work, the work of his heart, was left pure, unsullied by rejection, and hold out belief that had he sought publication, it would have been given to him.


I think I have this figured out. My heart goes out to Tom. It really does.



Tom: Why not try entering contests, and/or getting your work published by small, independent presses? Once you're holding something in your hands that you wrote, and someone else believed in and produced, you'll probably feel much differently than you do now. Remember that the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional gets paid. It doesn't have to be much. Write something, anything, and get it published somewhere, anywhere. Get paid. Then revel in your becoming professional. :D

[Will Lavender]

I am simply amazed at how long this thread has gone on. The same points have been made since the middle of page one, and Tom seems to be listening to exactly no one. (Yet here I am, adding to the thread...)

Anyone notice how many times the words "I" and "my" show up in Tom's posts?

THERE'S the problem.

[Will Lavender]

This is actually very sad.

I thought that perhaps Tom was baiting us...but then I went back and read his posts again. I now have a new theory.

No, I think Tom is sincere. And I'll even admit that some of his points (*vurps a bit*) are decent; I've thought about what it means when editors step into my work, for example, and what that does to ownership.

But if you go back and look at the whole Gordon Jerome/Jerome Gordon/Tom Berkely thing, you begin to see that the poster is tremendously, ardently self-obsessed. He has admitted it before. And this is what the thread is about; notice how he continually says "MY work," "MY writing." I think it's just a matter of Tom's inability to give into others because of his arrogance.

I pity the editor who ever begins to work with the man. It ain't going to be fun.

[Bufty]

Enter competitions? Try and get published by small presses? And thereby risk getting further rejections? Boy, that will really help.

I don't go along with this 'God directed me and only me to do this and therefore if I do it it's perfect'. That's deluded arrogance.

Why doesn't he ponder on the possibility God directed him to post in SYW to make him realise he may need help to write to the best of his ability?

[Monkey]

I believe that he is sincere; as I said, my "conjecture" comes directly from things he's posted on this thread. I don't think he's trying to be dishonest with us (other than possibly disguising who he is).

Further rejections would be rough, but he'd have less invested in a short story, and he could send small presses work that he's already completed without going through another round of edits. I think it would be a worthwhile thing for him to do, even if it was hard on him emotionally.

[Bufty]

I think he would love wallowing in it.

.... even if it was hard on him emotionally.

[davids]

Excuse me? I resemble that remark. We don't have to bring my personal habits into this...

:D

I like Monkey-me? I think I'd go with the crap throwing-as I sit on the Gordon Jerome Memorial Can I wonder to myself after not reading all of the considered poster's posts if in fact his God is perfect and created imperfect creations why this imperfect creation should not seek strong well founded advice? After all gifted musicians-athletes-even politicos seek help and sometimes from Mr. God-Hmmmm-what the hell do I know about writing anyway-the answer to the original question is sometimes-neither yes or no-depends on the kind of writin I s'pose. I will say this that I have been fortunate and indeed honored by a few more than talented writers who have asked me to mentor them. I did not change their voices I simply suggested ways in which I felt they could improve their art and therefore have perhaps a better chance to get said art out to the reading public. I must say that some of them have been successful in this and some will be I hope.

One personal note not revealing anything other than I was a competent professional singer of Opera. Not the local theatre but ones world wide. I have sung since the age of six and did not need a lot of teaching regarding correct production of my instrument.

However, I have been fortunate in that I have been teachable in the art of everything that goes with the profession as his God did not endow me with this info. If I had not been I would have simply been a fella who could sing and that is that-I would indeed have had the privilege of sharing this gift with others in a small fashion but if his God intended me to share His gift so generously given it was imperitive that I have help-He gave me this help in the form of mentors-professional folks who taught me the ropes and allowed His gift to prosper which is if He exists may be His way of allowing me and others much more gifted to be able to share and fulfill his gift-Hmmmm-hell maybe that is the case with writing-Hmmm-maybe even mine, genius that I I I I I I I be-if this makes no sense consult someone who may be able to explain it-love Dave

[narnia]

** snipped **

To get to the market and be seen, one had to go through a publisher. There was no real access to the market. A self-publisher couldn't get the distribution and had to shell out for the printing. With e-books there's no printing costs, and the distribution is equal to all other books that come out by Amazon. Basically, it's guaranteed shelf space in a big bookstore. What a person does with it from there is up to them.

** snipped **


And how is this different from almost every other 'product' that gets out there, whether it be a book, movie, recording artist, tech product, you name it?

Just because one writes a book as opposed to, for example, pitching a movie idea makes no difference in getting it out there to the masses, as it were. You want everyone (potentially) to read your book? Follow the process and do what it takes to get it published. Want only your friends and relatives to read your book as you wrote it? Self-publish or print copies from your computer.

What makes writing a book so special in that regard? As I have stated before, I can sing, and on key at that, but I don't think I'd ever have that little something extra to be a recording artist without intense lessons and study. So I resign myself to singing in my car because that is not my passion. Writing is, and I will do what it takes to see my work in print because I am a self-professed hack who wants to entertain the masses.

As for perfect, you mentioned work you've seen at the Tate Gallery. Do you honestly think the work you see hanging in such places was created perfect the first time out? I will also assume that you think artists like Michelangelo had talent. He created sketches first, eventually using chalk because it was easier to correct his mistakes using chalk than ink. From his drawings he created his masterpieces. I also believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) he painted over some of his original works. Kinda like editing your writing...

JMVHO

[scarletpeaches]

...After that, I'll write my zombie thriller that I wanted to write. Or one about a young boy who haunts a Louisiana swamp, and I'll do both of them for commercial success. But the one book that matters the most, I will never have compromised on.

What do you think about that? Is that insane?

You say that like there's something wrong with zombie thrillers, as if they're a step down from The Great Story.

Well guess what? We don't need a God-given story. We already have the Bible.

...ETAA: The Bible btw was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Only great scholars could read it. It was translated into english (and other languages) in order that the people could also appreciate the word of God. The Bible . . . was edited.

Translated then, rather than edited. (And parts were also written in Aramaic).

[DonnaDuck]

This is actually very sad.

I thought that perhaps Tom was baiting us...but then I went back and read his posts again. I now have a new theory.

Writing means very much to Tom. He feels that it is art, that it's GOD given, and that it has bearing on him as a person. He pours his heart and soul into his work. Later, when people point out mistakes, he wants to scream and rail against them. It hurts. Bad. It also shakes his confidence in his work.

(This isn't really conjecture. You can look back through his posts and see each of these points plainly spelled out. The next bit has a bit more conjecture, but is also supported in his posts. As I was saying: )

Once that confidence is shaken, the difficulties of snagging an agent and then a publisher seem insurmountable. An impossible task. And yet, he feels that his work needs that validation; he craves it. He wishes that he could post his work to SYW and get positive feedback that would show him that, yes, he really could achieve publication with a major publisher. Instead, he gets heart-wrenching, ego-deflating critique. It all seems hopeless.

So what does Tom do? He rejects the system that he feels is destined to reject him. If he never submits his manuscript to the publishing industry, then it can never be rejected. He can always say that his greatest work, the work of his heart, was left pure, unsullied by rejection, and hold out belief that had he sought publication, it would have been given to him.


I think I have this figured out. My heart goes out to Tom. It really does.



Tom: Why not try entering contests, and/or getting your work published by small, independent presses? Once you're holding something in your hands that you wrote, and someone else believed in and produced, you'll probably feel much differently than you do now. Remember that the difference between an amateur and a professional is that the professional gets paid. It doesn't have to be much. Write something, anything, and get it published somewhere, anywhere. Get paid. Then revel in your becoming professional. :D


I'll cry a river for him later. Life sucks, get a helmet and enjoy the downward spiral. You (generally speaking) don't see the rest of us wallowing in self-philisophical pity and questioning the existence of beta readers because we've been rejected. A real writer will just get back up on the horse and ride it again. We're masochistic. You have to be in order to be a writer. Rallying against "the man" because you were wronged according to your preconceived notions that your work was perfect is nothing short of idiotic. Get a thicker skin. It's the only way you'll make it as a writer and if the guy's railing against mass publication because of one rejection then that's one more slot the rest of us can vye for.

[scarletpeaches]

I think the verdict of this thread is:

Tom, grow a pair.

[davids]

Edited in translation and interpretation so say some scholars-plus the every day speach of Aramaic. Rabbis spoke Hebrew and the official language of the bureaucrats was Latin.

I loinded dis over ta Pinky's while awaiting my turn which always took far too long so I bought that place-we have placards now hanging above each room-I am such a damned humanitarian I is!!!!

[davids]

I'll cry a river for him later. Life sucks, get a helmet and enjoy the downward spiral. You don't see the rest of us wallowing in self-philisophical pity and questioning the existence of beta readers because we've been rejected. A real writer will just get back up on the horse and ride it again. We're masochistic. You have to be in order to be a writer. Rallying against "the man" because you were wronged according to your preconceived notions that your work was perfect is nothing short of idiotic. Get a thicker skin. It's the only way you'll make it as a writer and if the guy's railing against mass publication because of one rejection then that's one more slot the rest of us can vye for.


I think I have fallen deeply in love with Donna!!!!!:Hug2:

[Monkey]

Although I do feel sympathy for Tom, I agree that what makes or breaks a writer is the ability to keep fighting.

Therefore, I can retain my bleeding heart and agree with Scarlet. :D

[scarletpeaches]

I love it when people agree with me.

I shall kill you last!

[DonnaDuck]

Yay! You love me! Just don't reject me otherwise I'll go existential on your ass! :)

[seun]

Although I do feel sympathy for Tom

Why? :D

[scarletpeaches]

Because he's not you? :D

[davids]

Yay! You love me! Just don't reject me otherwise I'll go existential on your ass! :)

Donna as Ducks go would I have to get eggistential on your ass-I do like the rear end consideration-;)

[seun]

Because he's not you? :D

Well, that's understandable. :tongue

[DonnaDuck]

Donna as Ducks go would I have to get eggistential on your ass-I do like the rear end consideration-;)


Oh dear! Ha!

[aka eraser]

Locking this and punting Tom/Jerome/Gordon.

[Bufty]

In the butt, I hope.

Locking this and punting Tom/Jerome/Gordon.

[seun]

Locking this and punting Tom/Jerome/Gordon.

You missed out Geist :D

[scarletpeaches]

Nooooo! We likes him! :cry:

[Siddow]

I didn't even post here yet!

[aka eraser]

And I forgot to lock it! :)