Oh, I'm certainly not trying to guilt-trip you, nor suggest that you don't contribute to the forum, which you most certainly do! In admirable fashion. And I am a big fan of your writing already. I just am trying to grasp the logic of wanting others to enjoy the fruits of your creativity, if you don't feel interest in the fruits of what others produce as well. This is not saying you have to enjoy everything you read. However, a writer who refuses to read at all, on the grounds that nothing anybody else has to say will ever be of interest to him, seems to put himself and his own creativity on a platform above the rest of us. "I am The Creator, you simply Consume." Hmm... lots of people can do both! I'm not saying this lone-wolf creativity can't happen. It's got nothing to do with the act of being creative itself—of course you can be creative away on your own. I'm just saying I don't get it. I think the original post had to do with whether or not you can become a good writer if you don't read. I'm on the side of those who think you need to 'read' to some extent, in order to produce something other people will be able to follow. This has more to do with craft than creativity—how to string sentences together so they're readable and flow into the next, how to organise the story in a way the reader can keep track of what's going on. Part of the editing process is to think like a reader, and to forget what being 'the writer' was like. This thread has veered off into what makes creativity itself, which I think isn't quite how it began. However, it's been an interesting discussion. By the way ...if you don't like olives, that's fine. But I wouldn't trust you to produce them for others to eat, because you won't know a good olive from a bad one. Will you?
I don't think anyone here has claimed contrary to either statement. If anyone has, I've missed it. The only thing I'm saying is that reading at least some books now and then (and paying attention to how they've been written) helps in the process of becoming a good writer and that it would be kinda like shooting yourself in the foot to deny yourself a useful tool for learning your craft just because it's not your favorite past-time and that it's something you don't see a lot in other professions / crafts. At least usually not among those who are good at whatever it is that they do, be they artists, athletes, scientists, or something else. I think, in essence, not reading simply because you don't like it doesn't make much sense to me when most people accept the fact that in order to learn any craft or skill well, to become good at it, occasionally you have to do some less fun activities in addition to the fun stuff. But since the whole world doesn't make much sense, when all is said and done, who cares...
At what point did I say that I refuse? Because I don't 'refuse'. I just don't 'enjoy.' People keep twisting this to make not reading an evil crime. I don't enjoy reading, but do enjoy writing. And I don't expect anyone to read it. But if they do and they like it, what's the harm? And when did I say I put myself on a platform? This stuff is getting incredibly distorted in an uncomfortable way.
Which, many times, I've agreed with. I read. I don't enjoy reading. I'm not a recreational reader. And I don't feel obligated to become one. Edit: and when I say I read I mean passages and chapters. I can't stand more than a few pages at a time.
Does your lack of enthusiasm for reading extend to this entire thread? From what I can see, there's not many people (if any) saying that 'a writer can't write well if they don't enjoy reading' only that it holds more than a bit of arrogance to expect others to read your work when it's not reciprocated. To clarify, that is a general statement and not targeted at you specifically. If you find this doesn't apply to you, then good luck and I wish you every success. However, arguments like yours, only serve to legitimise the (non)actions of the lazy and deluded - of which there are many - that believe that this approach can also apply to them. There is enough piss poor writing in the world already.
It doesn't work that way. Most people that read don't write. I totally agree. It's not advised. I'm just saying that it is possible, and that it is legitimate. Writers that don't enjoy reading shouldn't be considered lepers.
Like I said, good luck to you and I hope it works out for you. I can understand that in some cases it is less of issue, I just happen to enjoy reading also. In fact, like most of us adults with family and work commitments, it is increasingly difficult to find the time, especially when you factor in writing as a pursuit. However, I think it is important to, when you can, get some reading done. More importantly, I choose my reading material well. No longer do I fill my brain with turgid, textual guff such as the tabloid press. I try to have a decent book of some literary merit with me that I can get through when I can.
Yeah, I agree. Let's drop it. I'm afraid my comments looked to be more personal than they were intended. I still stand by my view, as you stand by yours—but I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. Or to imply that you are putting yourself above the rest of us, or refusing to read. I was just arguing the issue in general terms. I apologise if my tone wasn't clear. Anyway. Little white flag, then? You are one of the people on this forum whom I really respect, both as a writer and a critique-giver, and would hate to have you think otherwise.
All good. I was just concerned that things were being twisted. I understand the general perception people have and it makes sense. Thanks for the kind words.
Because no one said anything about millions of people reading their work, just that it is possible to not read and write well. That is it. You're just biased and seem to warp the meaning behind the replies because you yourself think that reading is a requirement to write well. Get over yourself, just because everyone isn't like you doesn't make you fundamentally right. Also, my logic still applies. Even if you read tons of books and assume people will want read your work just because of that, it's still equally arrogant. It's arrogant to think your writing will be read by millions period. Write because you must, write because you need to, not to sell millions of books... I quote from the opening post: That is all he said. Not that it millions of people will read his shit. If I am honest, I haven't read the entire thread, so if he did claim that he's going to be an award winning writer, then fair enough, I will agree with you on him there.
Who mentioned millions of people? If ten people read something you've written then that, by definition is your reading public. I see you've conveniently dodged my questions again. Don't go posting about what type of person I am because you completely misinterpret a satirical post I've written, tell me to get over myself then have the temerity to append to the end of your post 'I haven't read the entire thread.' The mind boggles. I can't be arsed with this anymore, to be honest. Carry on.
The term 'the reading public' to me suggested millions of people. I personally just wouldn't label a small handful of people, in this case ten, 'the reading public'. But that's language for you; everyone uses it and interprets it in their way... Also, I never needed to read the entire thread to call you out on your post. Even if it was satire, it was ignorant and provocative to anyone who doesn't hold the same point of view. In fact, I could go as far as saying you wanted a reaction from it. Now you're all like, "I can't be arsed anymore." Ridiculous. Don't make provocative comments if you're not willing to deal with the result of them. And seen as that you're that desperate to know what I think of you. It's this: you're the type who doesn't think his actions through.
And you're confirming to me that you're exactly the type of person I know you are. Do you understand the definition of satire? Here's another question for you, where did you get your vest? It's a cracker.
I think this is great, it truly captures the essence of the misconceptions of reality. Not liking something does not make you less of an expert on said subject. I can't stand hollandaise, but I make a killer one. How can a corn farmer have the audacity to go home and eat potatoes and expect the world to eat his corn? This thread has somehow gotten skewed to where my OP represents not ever reading, or never having read. I've read and I've been disappointed. I enjoy shorts, poems, Steve Martin's letters in the New Yorker; I also enjoy getting lost in research. I do not like picking up a heavy novel for recreation, hence I can say I don't like reading. Forgive me for liking to tell the tales. Oh, the audacity I must have for even completing my first MS and starting a second; the audacity I must have for forcing myself and my shitty writing down the throats of the humble readers, but not quite as presumptuous as Thoreau on his lofty perch, or maybe even the bourbon guzzling Bill Faulkner thinking I might enjoy his bass-akwards Yoknapatawphians. Or, perhaps, ole Bill F wasn't writing for me or you at all; maybe he was writing for himself and we just happened to like what he had to say. I must ask if the following makes sense: You can't lead if you've never followed.
We'll let the reading public (there's not millions of them though, does this still fit the criteria?) of the forum decide on that, shall we? You've given me a laugh on an otherwise innocuous Monday, I'll give you that.
Sure. But I'll be more than surprised if anyone doesn't find a 33 year old man resorting to clothing insults on the internet pitiful, though. The very notion of you doing that just proved my point in you being the type of person who doesn't think his actions through.
I'm curious as to how much each writer considers the audience. I find the more I consider the audience, the less I write. When I don't consider the audience at all--throwing a middle finger to the idea of the reading public--I write a lot... and more creatively. I have to write for only myself.
How arrogant of you! Why would you expect anybody to read a story you wrote for yourself and not for others? Completely tongue in cheek, of course
