I like to write, not read

I love to read but I always have a hard time finding something I like. Sometimes I find literary too self important, genre too familiar, and experimental too dotty to be engaging. But I try to read from them all. You can learn something from each one. I think I like writing better only because I'm writing things I like to read.

 

The point I was trying to make was, sometimes we let our self pride get in the way of our judgment. I can't tell you how many times I've written a poem and thought to myself that it was the best piece I've ever written, only to post if for critique and have it ripped to shreds. Then there is the total opposite, where I throw something together in 10 minutes, and people act like I must have spent weeks working on something so good.

 

Just a question. Are you saying you don't read any more because you no longer enjoy what you're reading (or think you won't enjoy what you might read?) Or are you saying you have never been a reader, yet intend to be a writer?

I can understand 'going off' reading, or disliking so many modern books that you stop. But I would struggle to accept that a writer who has never bothered to read any books but his/her own will produce anything readable.

I think there is a slight difference between music and writing. Music exists in a form that anybody with hearing can access if they choose. You don't have to speak any particular language or even understand a particular culture to enjoy it. Therefore a musician is pretty free to make whatever kinds of sounds he or she pleases. They can study for years to play a particular instrument to a high standard, or they can bang away on garbage can lids in a random manner while screaming at the sky. These are all forms of 'music,' that everybody can decide to either enjoy or reject. But everybody hears the same thing.

Writing, however, is direct communication, using a particular written language. You have to speak and understand the language in order to follow a story. If you can't follow a story it doesn't even exist. Therefore, I feel you need to be familiar with how a written story works, and how to get others to follow your story in order to be an effective writer. Reading increases your familiarity with how it might, or should, 'read.'

I suppose it's perfectly possible to learn to write without ever reading, but I challenge anybody to produce a respected writer who fits that profile. It certainly won't be easy to find even one, let alone a significant percentage.

 

Start by reading the books you'd want to write. If Twilight is your thing, go for it. We all define success and good/bad in different ways, so phrases like "read good books" are open to interpretation.

I don't agree that more can be learned from grammar classes. There are only a few things you need to know from grammar class, and even those rules can be broken in creative writing. There's really no substitute for reading.

 

There was a time when I struggled with reading: I wanted to read, in a way, but at least a year or two went by when I didn't because I couldn't find anything I liked. After a while I just deduced that maybe reading isn't my thing and stopped trying to find books to read.

And then I found one that just blew me away. After that, I've found several more, and now I'm constantly reading something, and you know what? It has helped my writing a lot. If we use the music analogy, it's like being a guitarist and listening to a lot of music you enjoy and hearing all these amazing licks and riffs that inspire you to create your own versions of them (so you're not copying them, but using them as a source of inspiration when you create your own material). If you hadn't listened to those bits, your musical vocabulary would be that much more limited.

I believe the same applies with reading and writing. Sure, you might eventually stumble upon the same stuff on your own, but I'm pretty sure it'll take much longer and the revelations will be much rarer, so, in a word, it's less effective when it comes to improving as a writer.

I also see reading kinda like sparring in boxing: because I'm a very competitive person, whenever I listen to music or read fiction, I compare myself to the artists I'm listening to / reading. Are they better or worse than I am? If they are better, how are they better than me? It's not like sprinting, where you can just say "he's faster than I am." In creative arts, there are an almost unlimited number of ways to be better in various aspects of that art. Maybe the author has a larger, more effective vocabulary. Maybe they have a knack for writing more fluent text. Maybe they're great at really natural-sounding dialogue. Maybe their descriptions of action sequences are more effective than mine.

Whatever the case, if someone's better than me, I'll obsess over the hows and whys until I figure out what I need to do to not only catch up with them, but surpass them. I know, I know, that sounds really cocky, but I'm not there yet; I'm still in the catching up -phase, but surpassing those artists is one of my goals.

Speaking of competing with other artists, that's another benefit of reading (and listening to music): by comparing yourself to them, you get a clearer picture of where you are at the moment regarding your skill level. Can you find any books in your genre that you feel are worse than yours? How are they worse than yours? How frequently do you find books that are worse than yours? I'd wager that if it's almost never, you need to figure out what you need to improve in your game and how to do it. If it's practically every book you pick up, you probably need a reality check or you'd already be a published multimillionaire.

I know art probably isn't supposed to be a competition, but a competitive attitude helps push me to get better and if I ever want my and @KaTrian's books to be published (and hopefully to sell well and be critically acclaimed), I need to become better at writing. Simple as that. And reading is just another tool in my arsenal that helps me improve, bit by bit. I feel like if I didn't read, I'd be shooting myself in the foot. The trick is, I think, to just do a hell of a lot of searching until you find the sort of books you like. In my case, they are books that are similar to the stuff I like to write. That's also what makes it so easy to compete with those authors which, in turn, helps me develop. And now I lost my track of thought. Over and out.

 

@T.Trian , What is your competitive side pushing you to do better? Write a book that sells more copies than any other novel ever written? JK Rowling has five spots in the top twenty-one. How much of the Trian duo would be left in that masterpiece? Are you going to be able to lean back in your chair one day and say, "Take that, Faulkner, you drunk piece of...."

Again, it is all speculative. I fucking hate Shakespeare and I hope every high school English teacher puts me on ignore for muttering such filth.

@jannert - I read more when I was younger, still not a lot. There are a couple of books I lost myself in. I will never forget my mom reading Louis L'Amour's Last of the Breed to the family as we moved out to California when I was nine. I couldn't wait to turn the page reading Dean Koontz' The Watchers when I was eleven(ish?). I had already given up on Stephen King by age twelve and wasn't assigned one piece of "literature" in high school that I can say was enjoyable.

Maybe it's just my personality; I don't want to be compared to anybody unless the similarities arise spontaneously, not because I am emulating them.

 

Writing is just another medium to tell a story, like how painters use different paints. The one thing you need to be passionate about is telling stories. I personally don't read a lot of books, partly because I haven't found many that hold my interest, and partly because I have a tinnitus in one of my ears which makes reading kind of annoying.

I think if someone genuinely has a good idea for a story, and isn’t an avid writer/reader, but is absolutely passionate about writing it for their own sakes. Then yes, yes they can do it. You can read as many books as you want, and have the best understanding of written language, but if your ideas are shit they're shit. A good book is a good story, stories are not exclusively told in writing.

I personally enjoy anime and movies over books, there are some really hidden gems out there that have blown my mind. I’m a much more visual person, I like images and audio—I guess I should try audio books. But in terms of telling a story, I find writing to be the most accessible tool.

Naturally someone who reads a lot will have an initial advantage, basically ripping off what they’ve seen. Maybe subconsciously, maybe not, either way you will be using what you’ve seen, that’s just how we work. But like the aforementioned point, if the idea is shit then it’s simply shit. The hypothetical person with a brilliant idea but doesn’t read a lot, will eventually learn and improve on their writing skills as they explore their ideas, and produce a masterpiece.

Point is, it’s all about someone with good ideas. An idea can be birthed from anything—not just other peoples writing.

 

It's strange how you can tell when someone isn't a prolific reader just from their writing.

 

So what traits do you believe it is that helps you to be able to tell? Would you have known by reading Garball's entry in the Flash Fiction contest? My entry?

 

It's not about ideas. You don't go up to your coach and say "put me in the game, Coach. No, I haven't been doing my sprints or my presses. No, I haven't been practicing with my team mates, just alone, in the mirror. But I'm totally ready because I got the gift and I play like me, not them."

That's an imperfect analogy. But reading at the very least improves reading comprehension (consider it your mental muscle), which is absolutely necessary for good writing.

Amateur writers have it bad enough, where we don't have coaches and we don't have instructors. The only thing to guide us are how-to books and and real literature. Trying to excel in any endeavor is extremely difficult, and by ignoring basic exercises, in this case reading, you make your goal just that more impossible to attain.

Look, if you don't want to read, but want to write successfully, what do you hope to get from asking this, exactly? Go ahead and show your work to other people and see what they say. If everyone is jumping out of their chairs screaming praises, you know your answer (and if they don't you still know your answer). The very idea of even asking this question just strikes me as lazy.

 

Writing: "It's not about ideas." - 123456789, 2014.

I have no words to say to that sentence. Also, comparing a physical sport to using ones imagination is nonsensical.

 

This argument (reading vs not reading) is not about where you get your ideas, as some of you suggested. It's about developing technique. Sorry for the lack of clarity!

And I already said imagination or great ideas is not what this argument is about.

 

...but why not develop your own style and voice? Who wants to read 5,000 Hemingways, Kings, or Thurbers?

 

You're sort of an idiot and reading's like only an indication of intelligence maybe, but like, for clever, pretty boys and girls it's boring to read your shit when you repeat the same dull words and shit, same with the other shit on this shit, that is shit x

 

Reading in order to learn technique is not copying what you read. It is learning context. Without context, you are more likely to confuse your reader than come up with something 'original.' "Well, I want to have twenty characters who I all focus on equally in ten pages! That's my style!" Maybe it is your style, but if you attempt it while having no idea how others have gone about it and what others have read, well, you're more likely to fail than succeed. Because don't forget - even if you choose not to read, guess what? Your readers obviously do read, and will have context, and if you want to try something different, you better be damn well ready to convince a well-read person.

Unless you simply write for yourself and don't care about the reader. Then, well, go ahead.

 

A monkey flinging shit, that's not that creative.

 

Writing is a skill, it can be practised—ideas can not. You can't learn to have good ideas.

 

Wait, so you can't say you've never been around someone else that inspired you?

 

Of course I've felt inspired by things I've watched and read. But still, I don't see the connection of your question to what you quoted. What's your point?

 

Everyone thinks they have good ideas . Like you said you either do or you don't. Let's focus instead on something that can be learned, technique. That's being constructive

 

I reckon Lewdog'll be alright. Gimme a kiss Lewdog, it's your thread, that is correct? Write with sincerity and after about four years you will get the word order right for a publishing outlet to read. Mainly though, some kind of populist voice is best. Write fringe stuff and maybe your kids might benefit. These buggers out on the web who write 'the thing about us' they make me sick...and also cautious writers, the world over, those slags make me itch, he he he brother xx.

 

You're saying you can't 'learn' to have good ideas. I don't think that's true. How could you come up with a good sci-fi story about sex robots from Timbuktu that give humans a sexual transmitted rusty member disease if you've never learned about robots and WD-40?

 

Nah it's not my thread, it's Garball's but oddly enough I can see how you get the two of us confused. Just remember from now on, I'm the extremely handsome one.

 

And, according to your avatar, you have cookies!

 

I think of you both with like confederacy trucks n pick up flags - working down the M n' M, served time in Haute Louisiane mebbe, n' like real tough, but in the end game I'd eat you up and big hug and share wives swinging t-shirts and ravioli in the morning...and friends.

...hang on, losing will to live, wife dancing in background...