The motivation is creation, not consumption. Making things is fun. using my imagination is fun; a lot more fun than just reading what someone else made up. If you don't get it you don't get it. I'm not going to keep trying to explain it. It doesn't even matter that you don't get it.
My point is... Okay, so you don't like reading. Fine. So what? I don't always like it either, and I don't like doing cardio either, but I put up with that shit anyway, 'cause otherwise I'd get pummeled in the boxing ring, gassing out in the first round. Since I enjoy getting my ass kicked (or, rather, punched) even less than doing cardio, I do it even if I don't like it. The same goes for studying grammar, syntax, morphemes etc. regarding my uni studies; I hate that shit, but I'd hate sucking at my job even more, so I put up with all the crap in the name of becoming the best I can be at thing X. You don't have to like reading as long as you read. You don't have to sacrifice hours a day to read, but maybe half an hour? An hour every other day? I have no idea, I'm just tossing about numbers, but you get the point. And if you look hard enough... who knows, might be you find individual books or genres you actually do enjoy reading. That happened to me, and while my reading list won't include any Nobel prize winners (I've tried those too, but none of the ones I read were really my cup of tea), well, again, so what? I'm still learning from the books I read 'cause they are still published, they sell (at least more than mine that currently reside only in the confines of a few hard drives unless a few betas have printed out hard copies), so I can learn from them, be it things to do or things to avoid. For example, just a little while ago I read a sci-fi book where the male author had written the worst female MC I've ever seen, so I got plenty of ideas of what not to do when writing my female MC. I bet Edison would've been thrilled if he could've read a book called '1000 Ways How Not to Make a Lightbulb' instead of having to go through those 1000 (or how many they were) ways himself.
I won't quote, but for me that's all irrelevant. I read. I've enjoyed reading certain books at certain times. But in general I don't enjoy reading and am not a recreational reader. And as far as 'who cares' is concerned, well, the enjoyment part, not the practical part, was the point of the thread to begin with. So I'd say whether or not I enjoy reading is far more relevant than whether or not reading for the discipline is worthwhile.
I have been a constant-reader since I was in the fifth grade. All through high school I read junk; I was addicted to Harlequin Romances. My classmates and I would trade them like baseball cards in the band room at lunch time. We each read one a day, then handed it off. It was useless reading, but I loved it. I was also always the kind of check out books in the library - even in elementary school. I am never without a book (usually several) that i'm reading; one fiction, one political, and one 'self help' or nutritional. It's not uncommon for me to stay up all night trying to "finish" something - whether it's a published book, or a story i'm writing - because I'm also always writing. Luckily, i'm self employed (averaging about 15 hours of total work time per week) and have time to do these things. ) All that being said; I do NOT tend toward popular or classic authors. In fact, I am awful at remembering author's names - even of books I have really liked. I don't know why their names don't stick; they just don't. My fellow writing-friends (i have several friends that are published) discuss 'literature' and I feel dumb for not knowing what or who (whom?) they're talking about. But it doesn't prompt me to pick up any of those author's books and read them. I guess it only matters to me when I feel dumb around my writing-friends. I forget about it once I've left the room. / *I* just enjoy good story telling. I don't care who tells it, if they're popular, classic, or a nobody. MY goal is to tell a good story. I know that I have a tendency towards certain rhythms and verbiage when I write. I rely too heavily on 'go to' phrases that I use in real life. Reading other's work helps me to find other ways of saying something. I always have a list of cool phrases, interesting quotes, visual and liquid descriptions that are magical to me. I've never used any verbatim, but they DO help me to see into my fictional world through a different prism, and oftentimes; prompt a better 'voice'. Not to COPY another author, per se. It's more like watching a fellow cook make chicken soup - and they make it differently than I do. In the end - it's STILL chicken soup. They may have nuances and little tricks that prompt my chef-creativity, though. So MY opinion (since you asked for input) is that I do NOT believe one can be a truly great writer without reading what others have written. They need not be (IMO) popular or what's classified as "great" writers... they just need to be writers that you respond to. If I read three chapters of somebody's work and keep getting tripped up by the rhythm of their 'voice' - I move on; find another book. I don't want reading to be HARD. I want to enjoy it. But if one doesn't EVER read what others have written, *I* think they get stuck saying things always in the same way. And that, again in MY opinion, becomes dull very quickly. .
I totally get what you're saying. I'm not like that (I love to read), but I understand what you're saying. I'm just curious, tho - and i'm asking just out of curiosity; nothing more. If you don't ENJOY reading, how did you get started writing in the first place? I mean, MOST folks (clearly, not all) become intrigued with stories because they've read ones they like and it urges them to prime their own creative mind. How did you decide you wanted to write (especially fiction, if that's what you write) if you didn't like to read? If you answered that somewhere in the thread; I apologize. I didn't see it.
I'm with @minstrel on this issue. I'm not saying you can't write if you don't like to read—although I do suspect that any writer in that category is probably in a very tiny minority. I'm just saying I don't get it either. If you think what YOU create is worthy, but what other people create is worthless garbage, that's a tad arrogant, isn't it? At least it seems that way. You're worthy of being read because you're creative and spontaneous and wonderful, but nobody else is? And @Garball STILL hasn't answered my question: Why would you expect anybody to read what you've written, when you don't read yourself? If everybody thought this way, you might as well just write your heart out, then throw it straight into the bin. Why bother doing anything else?
I get that. I understand the love of creation. I guess I just don't have the thing in my head that says that because I love my own creation, I have to dislike other people's creations. If you don't get it, you don't get it, as you said. Good luck to you.
Not to beat a dead horse but writers are influenced by two things - other writers and culture. Some are more influenced by the culture around them. Some are more influenced by other writers that came before them. But its not either or. They are influenced by both to varying degrees. The OP doesn't like to read and doesn't read. That's fine. Good luck writing anything worth reading. Sorry if that's harsh, but its true.
Totally fair question. I've always enjoyed building, making and creating. Writing isn't my only hobby/interest. I used to draw, but gave it up because I'm impatient. I'm an award winning photographer and actually have an exhibition starting in two weeks. (if anyone is in Sydney and interested let me know). I'm a film-maker by trade. I went to film school and worked in TV for a while, making short films on the side, and also more recently a feature that kind of died on DVD. I've made models, I've designed a house and studied architecture briefly, I've dabbled in digital music, but was really bad at it, and of coarse I write. I used to really enjoy role playing and used that as the basis to write some fantasy, which ironically I hate now. I wrote not for people to read, but to enjoy the creativity of role-playing. Of going on adventures of my own choosing. Then in my TV days I started with ideas for films. I then wanted to make a horror, but couldn't find any capable writers, so thought I'd give it a shot. I wrote a script and, to save you a long story, I got a very positive reaction. I wrote more scripts and started getting involved in script development workshops and became a semi-pro editor/ adviser. At the same time I started writing my ideas in prose form, instead of scripts, because I enjoyed the process of creation as I do with all my other creative pursuits. It was also an interesting challenge. If I was bad at it, like music or models, I'd drop it. What I write is usually an idea or character that gets stuck in my head and I literally sit down to see what happens to them. It's all role-playing. It's all playing with toys in the yard. It's all making up a story and manipulating characters. But my only real recreational passion is film.
OK, the "non readers" side is starting to sound a little grey. Goofy likes Hemingway . Snarky concedes value to the discipline of reading. If we took two identical people, and had each one in identical conditions, except, for one hour every day one of them read, and the other watched T.V and only read occasionally, then, yes, absolutely the more literate one will be the better writer. But now we're dealing with different people with different goals, all of them who have more or less admitted to reading something. Makes this whole discussion a little trickier :S
Keep it simple then. Ask, are they recreational readers? IE: as stated right at the start, do they enjoy reading. Are they someone that goes to the bookstore, reads on the train, sits at home and reads. Not: do they read anything at all and as soon as words meet eyes they're a 'reader'.
In your scenario, I agree. The reader would likely be the better writer. But in terms of who would have a better grasp of narrative structure?......that is another argument. A book takes several days to go through (depending on length) where a film takes only 1 1/2 to 3 hours. So someone who watches a lot of television (with their brain turned on) can develop a solid understanding of characters, motivation, narrative structure, and plotting for a far more diverse set of genre and stories. That being said....you should probably read if you want to write. Not only does it help generate ideas and sentence structure, it also is fun.
Well, passion for reading is certainty a factor in good writing but hard to say if its essential? If you're spending inadequate amounts of time on here, posting you tube videos and stupid internet pictures and generally wasting time, it's certainly better to be a passionate reader.
OK but we have to assume that T.V is equally like to have your "brain turned on" as reading is.... Yet another factor :O
Then we just have different approaches, 'cause I'm the exact opposite in that respect: to me, the enjoyment of reading is largely irrelevant, but its benefits to me as a writer are relevant and what prompts me to read even if I don't feel like it. That's also the reason why I won't stop reading even if I stop enjoying it. The same applies to all of my hobbies / work / intersts, be it combat sports (the aforementioned cardio), practicing scales on the electric guitar, working on my grammar to improve my translation skills for work, practicing draws to get faster times and better accuracy at IPSC competitions, practicing drawing hands (boring, but I suck at hands, so I gotta do it to become a better drawer) etc. etc. The enjoyment comes into play after I've reaped the benefits of the annoying crap and experience the increase in skill.
Passion for reading certainly helps. I can't and won't debate that. But it's not essential. It all depends on the person. Some people have a gut instinct, some build their skill, other are just garbage and have no ability. My brother, strangely, has always been an avid reader. An incredible bookworm. He used to read hundreds of books, and still does. But he really can't write for shit. Not even emails or text messages. His communication skills are atrocious! yet he was the one always reading. So reading a lot does not automatically mean you can write, and not reading much does not automatically mean you can't.
That's interesting. I presume you want people to watch the films you make and edit, and presumably pay to watch them so you can earn a living doing what you're obviously good at? However, following your logic, everybody should be off making their own films instead, and not be watching yours at all? What else is interesting. I think you're a fantastic writer, from the things you've posted on this forum. So isn't it nice that some of us actually bother to read what you write?
That's most probably a fair statement. But for practical purposes we have to assume most of us are fairly similar, maybe slightly more or less inclined to another skill than another, but not significantly so. We can also assume (see history of mankind) that most people are generally lazy, and prefer shortcuts. In that case, those people aren't replacing their lack of passion with reading with anything else constructive, nor is their time not spent reading being used wisely. In those cases, reading is preferable.
It's interesting to see how defensive us reader/writers get when confronted with someone who only enjoys one side of the equation. For good reason, I believe. To add to the multitude of metaphors in this thread, I think the notion irritates readers because hearing someone say they want to be a writer and aren't themselves an avid reader is like hearing someone say they know everything about my home town without ever having been there. They might have seen it in movies or read an article about it, but they have none of the experience. The memories. They've never cursed it and longed to escape it. They've never sought refuge there. They've never made friends there. They've never fallen in love there. Even reading a couple books and then forsaking them is like visiting once, not particularly enjoying it and never returning. I think most writers take this admission personally, because for them, it's home.
That's rather unfair. It's not like only readers write and only writers read. Some people create, others consume. By your logic I should stop writing regardless of my love for it because it's 'unfair.' However, despite not being a recreational reader I still take the time to contribute to the workshops and vote in the competitions. Last I check I was still the only person to vote so far in the new flash fiction comp. I believe I still pay my dues when it comes to respecting that others put in effort to read my work. I genuinely appreciate it. When I ask people to 'bother' to read it, like in the competitions and workshops, then I should be doing the same. But recreational reading is up to the individual and once my book is out there I don't expect anyone to read it to be polite. They either want to or they don't. And if they are only 'bothering' to read it to be polite, I'd rather they not waste their time and do something they do enjoy. I don't enjoy reading books, just like I don't enjoy eating olives, and putting me on a guilt trip won't change that.
Right okay, completely unreasonable to construe that statement in that way. The arrogance I was speaking of was the arrogance of someone unwilling to read anyone else's work but expecting the reading public to read theirs. What's difficult to understand? Who said that? They're of interest to me, you spoke about my 'type'. I would like you to clarify. What is my 'type?'
