The one I always think of is that guy with the Kaiser Chefs, I once read an interview with him saying he doesn't know how to play guitar by himself, and he doesn't know any songs outside of Kaiser Chefs songs. That, to me, is just wrong.
I'm the exact opposite. I like to read books, but hesitate to write. Give me a western, historical, or supernatural mystery any day, but tell me to write one? "Er, can I go back to reading?" But in truth, there should be a balance between the two. All reading or all writing isn't going to help. You have to do the other part as well.
But he didn't exactly puncture his own eardrums out because he didn't like to listen to his music. He practiced music, he wrote music, and he observed music. Music was his passion.
Partly true, he had bad hearing at it deteriorated over the course of his life. According to the Beethoven website, saying he's 'deaf' is a big exaggeration. It became in the end a source of shame for him too, he ended up avoiding social functions because of it. Two quotes from his personal letters: "... Know that my noblest faculty, my hearing, has greatly deteriorated..." "... How sad is my lot, I must avoid all things that are dear to me..." Obviously he had a great appreciation for hearing music.
No, more like an author who has bad eye sight. Tone deafness is different to having a dicky ear, and tone deafness is more like someone with poor reading skills. Some authors have been blind. Homer (according to tradition) and Milton come to mind.
Writing is a craft, and like most crafts, involves utilising a myriad of minor techniques, combined with incessant practcise. It is entirely possible to pursue a craft without ever studying or even seeing the works of your predecessors. But there are at least two disadvantages to this approach. First, all crafts are the result of research, and trial and error. By ignoring what was done by others, a would-be craftsman is basically trying to re-invent the wheel and is going to have to make all the mistakes that other have already made and noted, as well as invent every design and manufacturing technique that humans have developed over thousands of years that relate to that particular craft. Second, this unusual craftsman is most likely going to replicate styles that have already been tried and used, and will have to discover how well each innovation is received by the public only by actually doing the work and then putting it out for sale (or giving it away). Yes, it can be done, but it would be highly inefficient and ignores the very purpose for which writing was invented in the first place - to allow the accumulation of knowledge.
Well, to each their own I guess. I love reading and wish I had more tme to read. While I read, I tend to look for things that work for me and things that don't, so I know better how to go about my own writing. I read almost every genre, especially books from the genre I'm writing in, so I don't know, maybe you just haven't found the right stuff? There're novels that are just unputdownable. I was reading Glen Duncan's I, Lucifer just a while ago, and even if it's not a classic or laden with deep meanings and messages, it's so friggin entertaining I can't imagine someone being bored with it... but of course that's perfectly possible.
If I remember correctly, Joyce also began losing his sight later in life. He had to narrate Finnegan's Wake to someone else because he couldn't write it down himself.
There is a wonderful story about Joyce and his failing eyesight. He took to wearing a milkman's outfit while writing because he thought it reflected light onto the page better.
I'm going to be honest, I fall into the same category as Garball. Maybe it's because of how my mental illness has progressed, I can't say for sure. I'm a huge movie buff if many of you can't tell by now and all the clips that I post, but even with movies I lack the patience to watch many movies all the way through at one time. Most of the time I don't have the patience with myself to read a book because of how long it takes me to do so. I haven't always been like this as I've read many Anne Rice, Kurt Vonnegut, Stephen King, and Thomas Harris books with no problems in the past. Now my attention span is so short I keep interrupting myself to look at other things or do other stuff taking frequent breaks from tasks. When watching a movie now, I'll probably have paused it a hundred times by the time I'm finished watching it. My writing process isn't much different really. Though I might spend an hour or two planning out a story or poem in my head to the very last fine detail, I usually don't spend more than an hour writing around a 1,000 words or less into them. If I spent 8 hours per day writing I could finish a novel in less than two weeks, but I could never bear to do that.
s/he 'read' the stories on neighbors' cave walls... one can not read fiction and still be a good storyteller... but to be a good writer of fiction, one really must be a constant reader of the best-written works... otherwise, it would be like wanting to be a good architect without looking at any blueprints, or studying how buildings are constructed...
There are two points that have been continuously brought up in responses that either contradict each other or contradict popular feelings in other threads. 1. You must read to know what works. Works? If I were to take this advice at face value, I should read what most here consider shit. What are the most popular and successful books currently on the market but poorly written, oft-critiqued collections of crappy grammar and sentence structure. Twilight works. Fifty Shades works. Hunger Games works. Is it the intended advice from forum members to bury your nose in these pages? While everybody is still scoffing at those successful title, let me blend point 1 into the second. "No, those books don't count. You should read the greats to find out how to be a good author." To me, that sounds like science. If we look at past experiments (books) and deduce what was successful and what wasn't from a variety of authors, we can then use all of those strengths to create bigger, better, stronger books. Does that work? Would you like to read a book written by a conglomerate of four of the top literary masters that somebody else put together? It is all speculative, who is good or who is bad. Hell, in a recent thread (before it was jacked), most everybody hated an opening paragraph by one of 'America's top living authors.' Now I'm not saying something can't be learned about writing from reading, but more can be learned from grammar classes. Again, I must resort to my profession as a chef to illustrate. In training I learned methodology (grammar/ syntax), not strict recipes (another author's works). I have learned how to apply the methodology and flavors to create my own masterpieces not by copying or emulating other chefs, but by having a deep understanding of the ingredients and how they interact.
So what I'm getting the idea of is, to be a good chef, you need to have good taste and understand what it takes to apply that to the food you cook. So how would you then correlate that to writing? Do you think that a person can have good taste in writing without tasting what other chefs (writers) have cooked? Or do you think reading your own writing and deciding if it tastes good or not, will then transfer to good writing for the public?
I read stuff that works for me and write stuff that works for me. I have no idea how a huge number of people would feel about my and @T.Trian 's writing. I'm inclined to think they'd either dislike or nothing it. I think what one will, however, learn from reading novels is 1) what's already been done 2) what sells/what's hot 3) the techniques the writer uses to grab the reader and convey whatever they wish to convey, which in my opinion goes beyond grammar. I've also learned about pacing by reading other works, or how longer and choppier sentences affect the mood, etc. I guess they can be learned from other places too, or some people just can pull it off instinctively. As for the grammar. Suppose this depends on the person, really. I'm just about to complete my Master's Degree in English and a big part of the studies is made up of grammar classes and linguistics. While they've helped me with the mechanics, they haven't taught me to turn my imagination into effective, fluent writing. I've had to work on that elsewhere and with other tools. However, such classes might do just that to somebody else. Maybe you're one of those people who are able to write engaging stories without reading fiction? I don't see a problem there. If it works for you, that's great.
@KaTrian but then again, maybe he is like one of those people that think they can sing, because they think they sound awesome singing in the shower? The only difference is, it's really hard to write in the shower without the paper getting wet or the ink running.
@Lewdog Well, his audience will be his judge... It's quite annoying to get story ideas when you're in a place where you can't write it down; the shower, movie theater etc. and you have to just keep repeating that sentence or piece of dialogue or metaphor in your head until you get out of there. I suppose that had nothing to do with this thread, though.
Just to use this snippet from your quote, not to put words in your mouth, I agree with one of three of these aspects and believe my point is supported by popular view on this forum. 1. What's the most common reply on this thread? Something along the lines of, "It doesn't matter if it's been done, but how you write it." 2. Today's best selling books are shit 3. I agree with this statement
