I think reading is impoirtant for writers to get new ideas that can help in writing, but yes, you can write for long time without reading but you'll lean on your own same ideas, nothing is new.
How are we defining "reading?" It's like saying "can you be a great director after watching tons of movies?" No. It's about STUDYING and understanding the technique, not merely passively reading or viewing.
Nobody is saying that reading is ALL you need to do to be a good writer. You do have to practice and learn. But reading - lots, and widely - teaches you what kind of effects are possible in prose fiction. It shows you what good writing looks like and feels like. All the technique in the world won't help you if you don't know what you're reaching for.
I admit that I am always appalled when I bump into a writer who claims to not read much. I have a husband who stopped reading novels since he was a teen. He now consumes endless amount of world news. He's actually a great editor for my writing because he is concise and is very helpful with gems of information that further inspires. He points out a lot of observations because he is about details and consistencies. But he lacks the feel for some creative written expressions and we get into arguments. I have had to ignore him on occasions and go with my gut from my own reading experiences. However, to be well rounded, I think people need to read all forms of writing. What I have found in reading a lot of books is that you will have a feel for language. Wanting to be lost in a book also indicates a love of being immersed in a story world. And with that, comes an appreciation of what that means.
I am a 'writer' that doesn't read much. Hate me. I rarely ever read for pleasure. I watch movies. Most of the books I have are for style reference, and most of them I haven't read completely. Usually only a few pages. I am currently trying to read True Grit. And while it's amazing, it's a long slog and I doubt I'll finish, much like my attempts at The Bell Jar, On The Road, Catcher in the Rye, Heart of Darkness, The Great Gatsby and many more . I've read 3 Bukowski books completely (Ham on Rye, Factotum and Women), and one by Hubert Selby Jr (Last Exit to Brooklyn), and a bunch of travelogues. But in the end I find reading a long slog, including my own work, which is why it tends to pack a punch, I guess. I do read a lot of articles, news and other short and sharp forms of writing.
Or like being a racing car designer and never racing.... no, wait.... Needing to be a reader is a crock of shit. It helps to understand the mechanics, sure, but you can study story without being an avid reader. It also helps to listen to readers, understand what they like. Have beta readers also, to see how the product works.But writing can be done using instinct, too. Whatever works for you. Reading a lot teaches you jack shit if you don't know what you're looking for or understand why it's working. For example, my brother is an avid reader. He is and was always reading, all the time, everything. He can't write for shit.
Writing is, like all things, a talent, which can be nurtured by reading other people's works. I devour books - I've always got one on hand - and I think a lot of my ability to write comes from things I've consciously or unconsciously picked up from books - how and where to start a story, pacing, dialogue, characterization, etc.
It's about having an appreciation of story in written form. It's about ongoing and broad exposure to language. How can you really be appreciate and understand it if you do not experience it or want to? In the car example, we all drive. We may not drive FAST, we do drive, can understand the activity and appreciate when a car feels good. It's knowledge and awareness from experience. Your brother may not neccessarily be gifted in writing just like we may love paintings but may be crap wielding a paint brush. He is a consumer of stories. He may not write well now but that's not to say he won't later in life or that he may use that creativity in other forms. People learn differently and at different paces. Some people are also just naturally gifted in certain ways. Reading a novel is also not about reading to know what you are looking for. It's reading for the experience you're taken on. You talk about reading for a purpose and not for enjoyment. Regardless, if someone does decide to write, they will always be helped by the fact they are readers. Maybe your brother is not the most intelligent person but I'm sure his reading has helped him. You may not know how exactly or appreciate it, but you're not him. Rather than say you don't like the long slog of reading, maybe what you should be saying is that you like to read shorter pieces, which is fine, and is reflected in your love of poetry?
I sort of agree with them person who asked the art question. It's a good analogy. You don't have to love art museums to love to paint, or love reading to love to write. I don't read much, unless I have to. I used to read books every once in a while. Nowadays if I'm reading it's usually an article, or an a type of essay. I've never been big on that big on reading, but I love writing. Coming from the standpoint of someone who wants specifically to be a screenwriter, I watch more tv, listen to screenwriting podcasts, and following screenwriting blogs on Tumblr. I honestly think that it depends. Reading a lot helps, but I don't think if a person isn't the biggest reader, but they love to write, that they should be forced to love reading, or criticized for not loving it.
Not really. I don't like or write short stories because they seem trivial (my flash fiction was... an experimental exception). And I generally mock poetry. It's ok, and there are some poets I really admire, like Sassoon, but I don't love it. (I don't drive. Just sayin'. We don't all drive.) Some actors are notorious for not watching movies. How dare they! But they explain that it's a distraction from their craft.
People can debate the logic of this all they like, but the reality is very simple. Either people can or they can't. I'll propose this: read my writing and tell me if I am capable of being a writer despite my disinterest in reading. The proof of my conviction, or it's dismissal, is in the pudding. YOU might not be able to write without being a reader. Doesn't mean others can't.
That's not a very good analogy. Quite close-minded actually. Just because a person doesn't read often, but loves to write, doesn't mean they don't think reading can teach them something. People learn it different ways, and no one person makes the rules for how it is a person can best learn something.
@Selbbin ...I worry for you, I can't help feeling you're doing your creative mind a disservice by shunning the reading of words. It's just foreign to me that you would write words but fail to see and appreciate the beauty of them when well crafted to deliver an experience. Be lost in a world because of them. I've always preferred my books to movies because there are emotions in it. Maybe you just need to look harder. And even sitting your ass on a car seat is experiencing driving. You watch the driver move the steering wheel, turn corners...stop and go..good driving, bad driving. You're a passenger in the experience. You would know what it means when a car is moving faster.
@Selbbin and it's not about whether you can or can't write, it's about expanding your potential. Why limit yourself by being closed off to reading. However, if you fail to get inspiration from it, and your mind just cannot be stuffed, then that's how it will be.
But not why. Most drivers have no idea about the mechanics that enable them to drive or what causes a particular problem, or how to fix it. Exposure does not equate to understanding in itself. And don't worry about me. I'm quite content with my understanding of writing. And in some way, I'm able to have a more original voice because I'm not instinctively mimicking.
That's exactly what this topic is about. It's not about 'potential.' Edit: It's interesting though how people insist that even after you explain that you were able to do something other people don't believe possible based on their logical interpretation, that people start explaining why you're wrong. It's like if people are saying you can't swim the English channel with only one arm, and then a one armed person comes along and says that they did it, so it is possible, but the people with the claim then explain that no, it isn't possible, because you need to have two arms, and here are all the reasons why you can't do it. Sigh. And worse, then someone starts saying, yeah, but not as fast, which wasn't even the point.
@Selbbin - the car analogy is about the experience and not the mechanics. I love watching Formula One but zone out when they go on about the technology. I actually never read my novels for the mechanics of writing. That would ruin my reading experience. If anything, I've only ever gone back on the rare occasion to find examples that counter the advice of this forum! I don't read for writing, I read for the experience. Reading for me is escaping is into the imaginary world and later in life have made me want to carve my own. It's not about mimicking styles. Although I'm sure I'm a merge of various styles I love. We obviously seek inspiration differently, you're talking to someone who has read mountains of books since she was tiny and cannot sit through a movie to save her life. But I can appreciate on some level where you are coming from. It just doesn't change the fact that I'm still shocked you aren't able to appreciate the value that comes from reading a beautiful sentence and the emotions it would invoke. That it can be a source of inspiration that might help one explore their own writing. Sometimes it's just a single word or a bit of dialogue. I am also talking about non-novel writing. I'd say learning to write for me is mostly done from writing emails and posts. Just expressing my point of view over different forms of writing. It's only the last 6 months I've actually done real story writing.
Huh? My car analogy isn't. You don't need to know about the technology. As a reader you don't need to know the mechanics. Only the designers do. The writers. But they don't drive the cars, or ever will. They don't even get IN them except to wheel them about. But they know everything they need to know about the extremely complicated technology, because they learn them academically. Writing is like engineering. You are crafting something to serve a purpose. And that purpose is fulfilled by the driver, the end user. Sure, you need to know words and the basics of writing, which could be your 'know basic driving' analogy, but when you get to the complicated end of performance, the basics are only that, basics, and you need to know a fuck load more to make it work, and you can do that without ever driving the car. You don't need to justify or explain why you read, especially when you point out it's for pleasure. It may seem strange, but I'm not debating your experience, only defending mine. And go McLaren!.... sigh.
Well the topic might be about being able to or not able to write. We can all write words, but that's not to say it won't be crap. Potential is really what is implied to me. The potential of writing well from reading a lot because there is an appreciate of story in the written form. It's not necessary something that can be measured either. But as far as I'm concerned, being a consumer of stories will only enrich the writing experience, if you're open to it.
@Selbbin - GRRRRRR! I am talking about EXPERIENCE. How the experience of reading can enrich, inspire and maybe even expand your vocabulary! Do we need to talk about the people who print the books? Maybe the stores that deliver us the books or the publishers? All I am saying (repeating) is that it is good for writers to read for the experience and maybe get inspiration be it because of the tale or the mechanics. Sure YOU - Selbin the Great - might write well enough, but that's not to say you might not write better if you enjoyed books more! Sheesh...
Well hate is a strong word, I might have often wished they didn't make it to the finish line. I don't watch it anymore. I used to watch it during the Schumacher days, I stopped when he retired.
Of coarse being a reader can help. At no point have I, or will I, ever state that it can't help. But you can't force desire. Reading bores me, I get physically tired and quickly distracted. Then I get sick of the book and want something new. Forcing myself to keep going won't let me appreciate anything. Anyway, if I'm a bad writer, so be it. I find writing is a need. Not a desire. Whether I can or can't do it well is up to the reader. So judge me on the words, not the process.
