I find that hard to believe. The man was an alcoholic that loved to do cocaine and had such severe depression that not even electro compulsive therapy could cure him, so he eventually ate a shotgun. When he was not at his home, he was usually out in the field doing research for another book.
This reminds me of a quote from John Gardner, in The Art of Fiction: I agree with this. This is why we read, and why we read good novels. It's very hard to write a good novel without knowing in advance what a good novel is.
Where are you getting your information? Hemingway eventually did become an alcoholic, but not until after he'd learned to write well. His late-life depression was probably caused not only by that, but by the injuries he'd suffered when he survived a couple of plane crashes in the African bush. Electroshock probably destroyed what was left of his talent, and he blew his own head off because of that. I'm getting my information from the biographies of Hemingway I've read (Carlos Baker's and James R. Mellow's), though I don't have them at hand right now, so I can't quote chapter and verse. Hemingway spent his early twenties in Paris, learning from his friend F. Scott Fitzgerald, and also Ezra Pound, Gertrude Stein, Ford Madox Ford, William Carlos Williams, and other writers and artists there at the time. I'd say he had a pretty good schooling in writing. He read tons of literature, too. He cultivated his he-man, rugged muscular American image because that's how he wanted to be perceived, and it turned out to be great marketing. It did not mean that he was an ignoramus, or someone who didn't read. He cared deeply about literature and writing - he just liked showing the world the bullfighting, big-game-hunting side of himself instead of the library haunter side.
From everything I've read about Hemingway, he created his own style through his life experiences during war. He started with short stories and through the practice of writing those, he learned to not waste space with useless words which eventually led to his novels that were filled with depth and not filler. His great writing wasn't because of the other authors he read, but rather through trial and error and life experiences.
Being exposed to all those different styles and techniques can also be inspiring. Reading European novels is what led Faulkner to write The Sound and the Fury. A quote from Ernest Hemingway in Context (edited by Moddelmog and del Gizzo): Here's another quote from Hemingway's Italy: New Perspectives (edited by Sanderson): Brasch and Sigman's Hemingway's Library: A Composite Record says that Hemingway owned an estimated 5000-7000 books. That's a pretty good indication that he enjoyed reading.
I'm wondering why so many fiction writers treat writing fiction as a skill that's somehow oh-so-different from practically every other skill in regards to learning methods. If you look at the vast majority of modern scientists, musicians, and athletes, just to name a few professions, they are taking advantage of as many avenues of learning as possible. Why wouldn't this be the case with writers? Just because some of the learning methods aren't exactly the most exciting and fun things to you? Why would a guitarist suddenly stop listening to music? Even if they aren't big into listening to music, the pros still check out new and old music all the time to keep track of their home industry if nothing else, but I'm willing to bet pretty much all of them have learned tons of licks, chord progressions etc. from listening to the greats as well as new talents (and they've probably learned what things to avoid if they sound like shit). You could say the same about learning sciences: it's not always fun, exciting, or even interesting (trust me, I know from 1st and 2nd hand experience), but many learning methods that suck ass to go through are important or at the very least useful in the long run. Why would a boxer stop studying the fight videos of the greatest boxers of all time as well as his own and those of his up-coming opponents just because he finds it less exciting than, say, sparring? Give me one modern boxing great (modern enough to have had regular access to videos) who does not study those videos? And there's a very good reason why they study them: by looking at their own fights, they learn more about their strengths and weaknesses (the same goes for studying the fights of their opponents), and by studying the fights of the greats as well as up-coming new stars, they learn what works, what doesn't, and whenever someone brings something new to the table, they pick it up easiest from the videos (except if someone teaches it to them IRL, but that's not always possible), i.e. they're staying current in regards to their home profession. I bet most of you can draw the parallels between the examples and learning the craft of writing fiction? Sorry, no offense, but to me not taking advantage of an obviously useful learning tool just because it's not your favorite past-time is a little... peculiar. Why does that fly in writing circles (at least among the amateurs, not so sure about the professionals, i.e. people who earn their living by writing fiction) when accepting that some useful learning methods are a pain is the norm among almost every other craft? And I can see how some think it's arrogant because, in a way, it is; as if we were somehow special, above all the other crafts; we don't need to do anything annoying to become true greats, all we gotta do is the fun stuff. I'm not so sure... Mind you, I'm not advocating that you have to turn your learning process into a nightmare that makes you hate writing, but I'm willing to suffer some annoyance in order to improve my craft and improve it has, partly because of the annoying stuff that I have gone through occasionally to get better (in my case it's mostly improving my grammar). You don't need to read a book a day, though, but perhaps one per year or none at all is a little too little. So far I haven't found a single learning regimen in any of my hobbies or interests that's always 100% fun, exciting etc. Every process of learning includes some boring woodshedding. What makes writing fiction an exception to the rule?
Sorry, but this is a very silly and superficial view of these writers. And an entirely incorrect one. Here is a Paris Review article on Hunter S Thompson influences. The second half of the article is an interview with Thompson. He goes into all his influences, who he read etc. Ken Kesey, Keroac, Wolfe, to just name a few. Also goes into how he started as a journalist and that he was part of a literary society when he was younger. http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/619/the-art-of-journalism-no-1-hunter-s-thompson From the article: Visitors to Thompson's house are greeted by a variety of sculptures, weapons, boxes of books and a bicycle before entering the nerve center of Owl Farm, Thompson's obvious command post on the kitchen side of a peninsula counter that separates him from a lounge area dominated by an always-on Panasonic TV, always tuned to news or sports. An antique upright piano is piled high and deep enough with books to engulf any reader for a decade. Hemingway was influenced by Mark Twain, Stephen Crane, Sherwood Anderson and many of his contemporaries. He was by all accounts very well read. There are illusions from Dante to Dostoyevsky in his work. Poe didn't roll out of bed, pour himself a whisky and start writing The Tell-Tale Heart". All of these writers read. Once a writer is ready to write then he writes. He may, in the case of Poe, sit in a bar all day and drink and write. But the education of a writer comes from reading first.
Just because some of these guys were friends of writers or say they were influenced by certain guys, doesn't mean they were avid readers. I used to have all kinds of books I never read, and I'm sure I'm not alone on that. If you look at the list of guys that influenced Thompson, Kesey wrote about drugs, Keroac helped to invent Gonzo Journalism, and Wolfe was also a journalist involved in the drug scene like Kesey. So many times writers with the same interest get together and influence each other, take the Transcendentalist for example. I think part of what is being lost in translation here is, some of us are not talking about not reading at all, just that we don't feel we have to read a library of books in order to be able to write halfway decently. This is just the same as not everyone that reads a ton of books is going to be able to write well.
I think my question is, why don't you want to read a library of books? Most writers (including Hemingway et al.) love to read. Why don't you? What is your argument against reading a lot, and deeply?
I can't figure out what you're saying here. Fiction writing does lack facial expression, tone of voice, and gestures. Fiction writing uses sentences, paragraphs, and punctuation. Fiction writing does allow you to glance back at what you've already read. These facts are true of fiction writing, so they certainly wouldn't make fiction writing "robotic." Did you intend to quote someone else's post?
Well my argument against it is time. With 4 daughters aged 2 to 14 my free time isn't as plentiful as I'd like. I like reading, but only get through about 5 novels a year at the moment. I read fairly deep at least, I don't enjoy skimming. I'm trying to figure out if people are saying this isn't enough. I could read more, but that would eat into my writing time and I want to get my novel completed some time this decade.
I've got three children and a full time job as well as a WIP that's now into its fourth year since its inception. No one is saying that anyone should read a certain amount, only that reading, and reading novels in particular, is a very important part of knowledge and skill acquisition for the aspiring writer. It's also tremendously enjoyable.
I also didn't understand the comment you quoted since the part of @thirdwind's post @Nilfiry quoted was also about poetry, i.e. the iambic pentameter, and I must confess, I've never seen that in any manual or research paper (unless it's been a research paper about poetry), so my guess is either she quoted the wrong post / wrong part of the post, or she might have misunderstood what tw was talking about (such as what the iambic pentameter is), but I'm sure she can clarify what she meant. ETA: I'm also pressed for time now and then, so when things get hectic, I try to find at least some time for reading, e.g. while I'm on the bus / train or while I'm on the can, or maybe I read 15min before I turn off the lights at night etc. I don't think 15min less sleep a night is going to cause too much sleep deprivation.
I'm not someone arguing against reading being useful by the way. I've often seen people (including many published authors) advising aspiring writers to read a lot. It makes me worry that my reading doesn't qualify as a lot.
I think many of us can relate to this issue. I try to strike a balance between writers I am interested in or have heard referenced by those writers. I also seek out writers broadly related to the type of thing I'm writing, not a specific genre but rather Scottish literature with an emphasis on representative Scots dialogue and demotic.
Not not while the giro is a collection of short stories of his and I would suggest it may be a better introductory text to get into his work. I've been reading How late it was, how late for a bit now as well as a few other novels by other writers which is something I don't normally do. I prefer ordinarily, to finish something and then move on the next. However, with this book I'm finding it a bit much to read in one go. It's a stream of consciousness style and has no chapter breaks at all. I admire the man for his resolute commitment to writing in the Glaswegian brogue and blazing a trail against the elitist snobbery that attempts to dictate that literature should adhere only to some predetermined standard English. Irvine Welsh cites him as an influence too. His punctuation is a bit lax though which I don't necessarily believe you have to compromise on in order to convey the demotic accurately.
There has to be a balance between reading and writing. It's a craft, just like everything else. An athlete still practices the moves in between games so he/she doesn't get rusty. Hemingway read just as much as he wrote not only because he loved to read (as I'm sure he did), but it was a way to keep his writing skills sharpened. I don't think anyone's saying you *must* read an entire library before you even ink down the first word of your novel, we're saying that as writers, we are readers otherwise how dare we expect people to read our work, when we can't even be bothered to read someone else's work? As we read, we learn. Not only about the craft, but about worlds and concepts that we couldn't even conceive of before. Not all of us are going to be the next JK Rowling, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that we read AND write, because that's our craft. That's what we do.
Exactly. When time is limited you have to pack only the most important things into it. The best books, writers, art, movies, etc. It's a matter of quality over quantity.
So, who are the best writers? Please justify why your speculative opinion should be heard over others. Also, the sports comparisons are not analogous. Tiger Woods has a golf coach. Has his coach ever won the Masters? What is being said repeatedly is all that you can hope for is to be nearly as good as the greats. The best has already been and we can just expect pretty good to come? And again, if writing were like science, we should logically expect writing to improve over time like science has. It would not be absurd to say authors in 2004 are/should be better than authors in 1904.
I think there's also a difference on reading. You either read "for fun" or for learning, and I found myself to be different things. Sure, you can also learn while you're reading "for fun", but that's not my case . If I'm going to study the writing of another author, I usually can't enjoy the story itself. Maybe that's just my issue. But the point I want to make, is that when you write, you are writing something you don't find anywhere else. At least for me, when I write, I'm creating a story I would have loved to read if I had found it written by somebody else. So, in simple words, I love to write because I love to read what I write. The problem with reading other author's works may lay on the fact that I have to find something that you'd actually love to have written. I also have some trouble getting something that I enjoy reading, and that's perhaps because I can't find easily something I'd love to have written. That's why I mainly enjoy writting a lot more than actually reading other people's work.
