So, what do we need them for? It seems to me that if we're going to use anything to screen for the types of writing we are most likely to find helpful, works of critique would be a better use of precious time.
I see no difference at all. My guess is most readers' idea of being entertained, whether you think this is what's happening or not, is to be informed, inspired, awed and moved. I also don't see how, because you read Michener, you feel you might be special in this regard, compared with say, someone who reads crime dramas or romance stories by lesser authors. Without trying to get into @JayG 's head, and, what I take away from all this, is, entertainment has to be viewed as the key element behind writing; writing you'd like your audience to enjoy, and be informed, inspired, awed and moved by. I can't see how fiction, written to primarily entertain, and most fiction is primarily written to entertain, could not be thought of primarily, in any way, except from a viewpoint of entertainment first. Exactly who your target audience is and how you wish to structure that entertainment is open to much debate. You may want to think that entertainment takes a back seat to your reading; I just say you define it differently. I just read Jose Saramago, All The Names, last week and to me, it was unbelievable inspiring. Huge complicated sentences that ran on for ever. No dialogue punctuation, and paragraphs that spanned many pages. Despite much rule breaking it was still structured. You were there "with" Senhor Jose the whole novel.
I actually don't think I'm "special in this regard" (and I can't see where you would have gotten that from my post - if I really thought I was, the rest of it wouldn't have made much sense). I suspect I'm somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. But then I'm not the one who set up the dichotomy. Perhaps the perception that there is such a dichotomy comes from those who say, "I don't want to here about all that stuff (whatever the particular "stuff" happens to be), I just want to be entertained." Yet despite such sentiments - and they are out there - serious, tragic, deep and moving works continue to be produced and enjoyed.
I well know that. Unfortunately, a sincere belief in something has no connection to it being either true of false. I spent forty years designing logic for computers and control systems, and the one painful lesson I learned is that the universe doesn't give a damn what I want or what I think. But the good news is that if no talent hacks can make a living with their writing there's hope for us all.
If by that you mean I keep insisting that education is necessary no matter what profession you hope to practice you're right. Look at the evidence. I started where everyone starts. I made the same mistakes everyone makes. I wrote six novels not knowing that there were books on writing technique, and never thought about it because like everyone else I thought I had learned how to write in school. And since I devoured several novels a week, and had since I was a kid, obviously, I had learned how to present a story. I knew that, just as certainly everyone else does. But nothing sold. And when a pro looked at a sample of my work there a sea of blue pencil on the pages. My characters were paper cutouts who behaved according to pop psychology. I was thinking cinematically. I had info-dumps and backstory. That was what the editor said, without pulling punches. And he was right. So I started reading books like Bird by Bird and whatever was on the shelf at my local library. And six months later I had a contract from a small but real romance house (they're out of business now, but it wasn't my fault. Honest). So how many people do you know who garnered a publishing contract six months after they decided not to educate themself? Do you really think they simply sat down, scrawled out a manuscript, handed it to a publisher, and that publisher invested money in editing and preparing the work. Look at Dickens. He taught the writers who worked for him to maintain the quality of the product. Would he have needed to do that if reading was enough. You make the mistake of believing that if you don't see training in writing fiction in a given writer's biography that never read anything on writing fiction. I've not seen anyone, on any site, other than myself, quoting a book on writing and asking questions about it.Perhaps I missed them. Advocate not learning professional technique? You just did in the post I'm quoting. You talked about reading fiction and literary criticism. You mentioned workshops, mentoring, or studying craft not at all. Funny thing that. People are always saying, "All you need to do is read and learn from the masters." Posts like that appear all the time. Someone says, "I'm new, what do I do," and without fail, I am one of precious few who recommend a specific book on professional skills, or some other form of writer's education. The number who suggest analyzing novels as you just did, to learn how to write, are in the majority, as are those who insist that you first write the story, "to get it down," then fix it in editing, as if you'll somehow recognize the problems when you edit that you couldn't see as you wrote it. So it's no straw man, it's very real. But forget that. You insist that simply sitting down and writing is a viable path to publication. Yet is hasn't worked for you—but should have. You're insistent that it works, and advancing it as a path to success to people who hope to achieve publication, as a viable alternative to learning the craft of writing fiction for the printed word. I'm not trying to put you on the spot or belittle your accomplishments. And I'm certainly not trying to play the "mine is bigger then yours," game. But if you insist that the method works I would like something better then pointing to people you've decided never read a book on craft or worked with a mentor as an example of success via that method. Perhaps it works. But unless it works reliably, and with close to the same frequency as education, dare we tell hopeful writers, "You can learn to write by reading?" And that's especially problematic since I learned that some of the "masters" being quoted as advising that one just needs to read were deliberately misleading people to prevent competition.
Michner did that after he was a writer. And he did so with an educated eye. The man was a college teacher of English before he went to war, years before he began to write fiction. Do you really think he sat down before he penned Tales of the South Pacific and analyzed thousands of books? Who learns more about how to cook by eating in a five star restaurant, someone who is already a chef? Or would it be someone who has never studied the art of cooking? Here's a suggestion. Your local free library probably has Scene and Structure. Many do. Check out a copy and read it. Don't skim, read it. Then you can accurately report if it did or did not help you write with more skill. It will cost you nothing but a few hours of reading and thinking about writing. It's only fair to warn you that a few years ago someone in a forum like this one decided that he was going to buy Swain's book, find all the things wrong, and prove it unnecessary. The scheme backfired and he ended up published.
JayG, really though, you do keep insisting that because a particular path worked for you, it has to work for everyone and that no one will be successful unless they do as you do. And you know that's nonsense. Yes, writers have to learn their craft - but there are soooooo many ways to do that, insistence on one and only one just... well, as I said, you know that's nonsense.
The fact that you got that out of this: ...shows me that you are so wrapped up in your-way-or-the-highway that you are not even bothering to read and digest the posts that you are so eager to contradict. Unfortunately, we now seem to have reached that point - one member persistently misquoting and misinterpreting the postings of another - where most threads spin off into an endless repetition of "I didn't say X, I said Y". I'll pass on that.
If you read my posts, you will note that I have not said not to read these books - I have said I think it's better to read them (if at all) after one has read/written/critiqued. And nowhere have I stated that one will definitely always without doubt fail if they don't do it my way.
Yeah, think this discussion has run its course for me as well. Otherwise I'll just be copy/pasting all my original quotes and hope someone actually reads them...
I've been told that this is unacceptable behavior. JayG has been respectful. You seem to thrive on confrontation. And you're misinterpreting his postings, too. Read his posts again; I'm sure you'll find that he's not advocating following only one method. All he's saying is that everyone must learn what editors look for, and you cannot do that by reading good fiction alone. That's really all there is.
ED: What I see from what you quoted is a rejection of the idea that you can learn to write good fiction using ONLY literature and literary criticism. JayG isn't saying don't read and study fiction...it's insane to think he is.
I think use of a how-to book is closer to making use of a forum, like this one, than you realize. I can't imagine anyone saying you shouldn't be writing, reading, and critiquing all the time. That's obvious. Let's say you've been writing for a while, with no feedback from publishers. Either you haven't submitted yet or they don't like you. Doesn't matter. You want to get better, right?So, you could ask your friends, family, acquaintances for feedback, for whatever that's worth. Or you can submit your stuff here to strangers. If you take a look at a random critique on WF, chances are you're either going to find criticism or something like "this is an interesting story idea, etc, etc." In either case, you should realize that neither response is exceedingly positive, the problem is, as ED sort of pointed out in another thread, how many people can you really trust here? You can't argue that they don't love it, but that doesn't mean their reasons for not loving it are right. They might not even realize what's failing for them. Consider a good self how to book like a really well informed forum member who takes you aside, and offers pretty reasonable potential reasons as to why your writing is failing. Just like with any forum member, you are not bound to taking their advice, but the advice is there just the same. That's a self help book. On the issue of old school writers: Cervantes didn't write with a computer. Does that mean I shouldn't? Things evolve, and it's up to you as an aspiring professional to responsibly decide what, when, by whom, and how to use something. When a how to writer dissects excerpts from 100 different successful novels, why is it such a crime to pay honest considerations to his points? It's possible when people read Jay's posts, the impression they are left with is as follows: "If I don't use how to books, I will not be successful." I don't think that's what JayG meant at all. More likely, he meant something like "If you are not successful, RIGHT NOW, how to books are one of the best realizable methods to giving you a reasonable chance at becoming successful at a reasonable rate." Without some sort of rigid guidance, most people are going to drown in their own mediocrity. This is the reality in any endeavor, not just writing. If JayG's advice doesn't pertain to a certain individual, presumably, that person won't even be on WF in the first place.
I think it's actually more than that. It's not the how-to books itself that are important. It's the methods in them. I really think we could all agree on this, no? This whole thing is just a misunderstanding.
I'm going to pop in and say I actually find this discussion comforting, because I always thought I was the weird one. When I was about fourteen, I read a how-to book on writing, and one of the things it said was, "You won't be able to write a good book until you're thirty, because you won't have the life experience." (And no, I don't remember which book it was.) I think since then, only once have I ever gotten as close to throwing a book at the wall. Since then, writing for many years (not with the expectation of publishing either, I did it for fun), I've looked at how-to websites, articles, and so on. I was always left with a feeling of, "I guess I see your point," but it never really helped me actually execute anything. In the end, the most learning I've gotten is from writing and reading books. I write and finish a story. I take a break, read some books (some good and some not-so-good), and evaluate my story based on what I did and didn't like in other author's works. Seeing everything actually executed, both in my writing and others, was the only way I learned besides beta-readers going over my work. I'm sure some people learn a lot from how-to books, but I never found them as helpful as reading and writing with a critical eye. I think the only how-to book I ever really learned from was The Elements of Style, which is more about writing word by word then things like plot arcs and characterization, which seems to the major topics in normal writing how-to books. So I guess I want to say - it's good not to be alone!
I agree with what you said, but I think it goes further. People like Bickham, Swain, and those who went before looked at the question, "Putting aside the individual styles, what does successful writing have in common?" Or perhaps what does unsuccessful writing have in common? They did an analysis, professionally,and to a depth we can't match with the type of personal analysis Ed favors. They weren't saying, "How does this writer handle such-and-such. They were saying, "What constraints does the medium place on a writer and are there elements of working within that, that most successful writers use? And based on the success of their students, it appears they were successful. I can no longer find it on the web, but a roster of the people who went through the Oklahoma University's legendary professional fiction writing course reads like a who's who of American fiction of that era. Did Foster-Harris, Swain, and Bickham, (the sequence at Oklahoma University) decree that scenes should end in disaster? Or did they find that almost all successful fiction presented scenes as a unit of tension that must either resolve the tension or end it in some way, so as to avoid melodrama? My point is, we all read and sincerely enjoy it. We all recognize the rising and falling structure found in the work we read. But will we realize the importance of it and see how it's managed in successful fiction? Based on the stories I see posted online I'd say it's rare. We know what's happening, but because we're not aware of the overall structure of a scene, and its elements, how much fiction must we read and analyze to get to this understanding:
Instruction is someone else's analysis and interpretation. It can be useful because they might have thought of things you haven't. Through reading, you can do your own analysis and come to your own conclusions as to how things work. So, a bit of both.
i know some are probably going to shred me for this (but at least im being honest) ive looked at and read several how to books (and even have Scene and Structure next to me) but i really do find that they are of very little help, i studied a English Language and Literature at AS Level, and im going to be honest, i learnt more there than i ever did from any of these books. how? by reading others books (even if it wasn't what i was aiming for) and seeing how they did it, and also, i have found that by finding other people (i joined a group on fb for my Regions NaNo) that i learnt a lot more from them (and several of them are published, both through houses and self published) that i could have if i had sat and read the books. doing it that way has also helped me in gaining more of an understanding of other writing styles, including script writing and poetry. i also suggest possibly learning a second language if you don't know another already, because i have found learning another language has helped me gain an understanding of my own (NB. i am English with french as a second language) i may sound crazy for saying it but i have actually found it a huge help because when you look at how things are structured and how grammar is done, you have to look at what its like in your native tongue as well... thats just my two cents of thought
I was reminded today of something that happened back in my parent-advocate days. It was the 1990s, and the primary education world was locked in a death struggle over whether children should be taught reading through phonics or "whole language". There were legions of folks on either side who were ready, willing and able to hurl white-paper grenades at a moment's notice, and in our neck of the woods, letter-to-editor snipers were common. The issue was actually a critical factor in a local school board election. At about this time, we managed to get our son, who is learning-disabled, into a private school. His first year there, I met with his reading teacher and in the course of the discussion I asked whether he was a proponent of whole language or phonics. He laughed and asked me if I had a tool belt at home. I said that I did. He asked me if I had only one tool in it, or did I have several, and when I said that, of course, I had several, he replied, "It's the same thing with teaching. If I think phonics is the approach that the student will respond to the best, then that's what I use. Same with whole language." I said that was fair enough, and in the course of two years, my son went from reading at a first grade level to an eighth grade level. Learning styles, and the ability (and willingness) to teach to them, go a long way to determining the success or failure of a student. For example, there are auditory learners and visual learners. I'm a visual learner. I have to see it or read it. Lecturers had very little impact on me in college - for me it was the course reading that made all the difference. Don't 'splain, Lucy. I'm also an impatient learner - I tend to race ahead to what I know I don't know so I can learn it. It was probably this quality that led to my driving the nuns of my youth to distraction (and occasional fits of rage). The discussion of the subject of this thread began long before the thread did, and shaped the thread itself. But as I read back through it, I came to the realization that what may be driving some of the intensity of the discussion is that we're really discussing various learning styles and that is a very individual kind of choice. That's not to say that all teaching methods are inherently equal; I think it would be more accurate to say that each involves some strengths and some risks, and the learning style of the individual ultimately determines which teaching method is the most beneficial. In this case there are not just two approaches to learning the craft of writing fiction. After reviewing the discussion, I have come up with these: 1. Wing it - the aspiring writer makes no effort to learn or understand the techniques of writing fiction, relying solely on what (s)he learned as part of a basic (in the US, K-12) education. I actually don't know of anyone with serious aspirations to write who embraces this, and I certainly don't (@JayG's assertions to the contrary notwithstanding). As Jay rightly points out, it is foolish to think that you can just magically turn out publishable work with no preparation or study. 2. Direct instruction - by which the aspiring writer seeks to be taught, either through classroom instruction or books on the subject, the techniques of writing fiction, rather than through a more general study of literature. The strength of this method (and this assumes that the instructor or writer is fully competent to teach) is that the student is guided directly to those elements of writing that are common in a particular type of publishable fiction, giving him/her a leg up on what is common practice. The risks are that the student is limited to the instructor's world view of publishable fiction (that is, the instructor cannot instruct on what he himself does not appreciate), and that a particular instructor might not actually be qualified to instruct at all. 3. Comprehensive Study - by which the aspiring writer reads and analyzes a wide range of fiction in multiple genres, paying particular attention to the techniques of various writers and then adopting those that work best for the student, augmented by reading literary criticism. The strength of this method is that it allows the student to sift through and determine which methods are best suited to him/her, and also exposes the student to the widest range of literary works and genres, providing for general enrichment. The risks are that it requires discipline on the part of the student because it is a long process and that the student could become enamored of a method that may have only worked in a single special circumstance that the student cannot replicate. 4. Indirect instruction - the student completes a course of study of a field closely related to fiction writing, such as university programs in literature or journalism. The strength of these majors lies in the structured study of some elements of writing fiction - in the case of literature, the defining of the field, and in the case of journalism, examples of what makes publishable quality writing. The risks are that, in the case of literature, the emphasis is on reading it rather than writing it, and in the case of journalism, what is being taught is a very different form of writing from publishable fiction. In either case, the student will still have work to do, either through Comprehensive Study or Direct Instruction. Those are really the main choices. If anyone has another method to suggest, I won't argue, but these are the only ones I have seen as trodden ground for successful fiction writers. There will, of course, be exceptions. One of my favorites was C.P. Snow, who was a scientist first and a civil servant second. He also served as a college fellow and married a novelist. His writings seem to have sprung out of his life experiences. He probably engaged in some form of study of fiction writing but, to my knowledge, he never said which. It's no secret which method I favor and which one Jay favors. Jay's method is right - for him. He has even already had positive feedback in the form of success for his writings. However, it is not right for me, given my own learning styles. And while life circumstances have thus far prevented me from getting to the stage of success that he has attained, I have nevertheless had some successes of my own and have also gotten enough positive feedback from professional sources to know that I am definitely on the right track. Which method is best for you? That depends on your learning style.
