I have repeatedly heard the phrase that avid readers make good writers. I suppose that makes sense. However, I have a confession to make. I don't read very many novels. I don't really know why, but I just have trouble sticking with them. It could be a short attention span or just a simple failure to capture my interest. The last one I completed was part of a college assignment, and haven't finished one since. That said, I obviously enjoy writing fiction, or else I wouldn't be here. I know I need to read more, but does it have to be novels? Could it be short stories, comics or scripts to help you improve? Is there anything I can do to want to finish more novels?
I find it helps to read novels with some focus on things that I'm interested in writing about myself. That way I can label it 'research', which helps me persevere even if the story isn't really grabbing me. I've read a lot of blah novels, but with my research hat on it's rare that I can't get even one thing out of them.
Depends on what you want to gain insight on. Overall, read what you want to write because it'll offer you the most insight. Still, any story can offer you examples of good or bad writing on a basic level. However, a short story won't help you see how a successful author paces a novel (if you want to write novels). Nor will an urban fantasy help you understand the common themes in epic science fiction. All that said, there are A LOT of books I've read for insight that I didn't finish. I still learned some stuff despite that. Don't feel bad not finishing a book if you really don't want to.
I'm similar, part of it is my focus on chess didn't leave much time for fiction books and now family commitments don't leave much free time. One thing that helps is kindle, now I can have something to read anywhere and it never leaves unless I delete the story. And with things like the Gutenberg Project you can get a lot of stuff for free but they will tend to be at least 50-75 years old.
... And often chopped-up word salad assembled by a machine with no human supervision. I'll usually download several versions of a book if they're available, hoping one will be readable.
Is an author that reads a lot of books going to have a slight advantage? Well in my opinion, of course because they will get a general scope of possible plots and related to their characters which will give them insight on what to do slightly differently to be considered a "twist".
I'd also say, a prolific reader will know how best, or at the very least know many different ways to describe settings, actions, etc. Even if a person doesn't read for the purpose of being a better writer, they'll subconsciously pick up some of these things. How big a difference it makes between a non-reader, I don't know.
I don't necessarily think that it's a requisite. I mean, in order to understand about plots, twists, etc, you could just as easily derive as much from a movie than you could from reading a book. They say that you should "Read as a writer", but it's also possible to "Watch as a writer". Nothing is set in stone. No two writers take the same exact path. The journey is secondary when you compare it to the destination. Essentially, do what works for you.
The problem with movies compared to books is that a lot of movies based on books have simplified plots, like LOTR, Hunger Games, etc. they focus more on PREMISE than actual plot structure and when you have big premise you don't really get a lot of complex plotting, etc. that you will find a lot in books with less ambitious premises. And if you are just watching movies and getting your stories from them first of all there is a lot of common overlapping and you will need to have a big premise. That is why I recommend reading books from your genre that have interesting plots because not everyone is going to have a great premise before they're ready to go. Just my 2 cents.
The problem with focusing too much on cinematic stuff is what you write may end up like a screenplay. This is one of my weaknesses.
Watching movies to get better at writing stories... I don't know. That's like saying you can hunt because you learned how to fish. Sure, they both involve catching animals for food, sport, or etc but they're pretty widely different experiences.
No. I completely agree. But let's say, for instance you watch "Pride and prejudice" or read it. On the face of it, it's a very simplistic story, with a simplistic premise, but there's a reason why it's still in circulation and still being reprinted. A story doesn't have to be complex, it doesn't need to be nuanced. If told well, even the simplest story, with the most basic of structured can captivate generations. But yeah, I tend to agree. Movies never will be as in depth as its source material. A novel span spend x amount of time, whereas a move is finite
Is it a weakness, though? Personally, I started off with screenplays (as my dialogue is my strength), I then learned how to pad it out with exposition, etc. If something helps you get you to where you aim want to be, it can never be thought of bad.
There is a lot of overlap between movies and books, but there are also important differences. Here's some good discussion covering part of the difference. And also, as @Homer Potvin implied above, writing uses words, where movies are audio/visual experiences. So as a writer, as we sometimes say 'round these parts—ya gotta word good.
IDK, this guy caught a bear with a fish.. . OP: But, I tend to agree. See film has an element that writing doesn't have: The ability to capture images without having to try and describe them. So, unless you know how to use just imagery to tell a story with little to no dialogue, then it is hardly the same as writing is. Though there have been stories written in that fashion way longer than movies have existed. It just saves you on what you have to write in terms of a screen play, since the visual elements aren't addressed in the written format in movies as much as they are in books. (Also you need a much bigger budget and a really good camera.) Also there have been a number of stories written over the years that don't translate to film well, due to them not being able to capture some of the visuals in some of the adaptations due to not knowing how to. Hence written works take an advantage over flicks, in a way that movies can never compete with. Not to say that it hasn't ever happened in some capacity it is rare, when a film of any sort primarily relies on it's visual story telling to do the heavy lifting, over it's dialogue and exposition to move things forward. Unless you anylyze a massive amount of every scenes visual information to see what ties it all together with the narrative between characters in each scene. (I'm not talking the obvious things, but the more subtle details, that clue us in about the complexity of the each part of the story and characters.) While possible, not as easy to get across, as it is in a book format. Lastly, bad acting skills hardly ever show up in written format (along with poor casting choices). Consider the more outlandish stories with creatures that would be much more difficult to film back in the day do to being so absurdly different from the more humanoid versions we got from the early days of film. Sure today we can 'make' them look like they are apart of a scene now-a-days with primarily CGI, and practical affects. But back then, they had no way of applying such creatures and characters to screen. So, it would seem the imagination largely trumps the adaptation in the translation of the written to visual format. (Besides there are people that adapt books that they have never read, which makes me wonder if they understand that people to reverse movies/shows egineered back into books. It has always been the other way around, typically. Also there are video games adapted from stories. I think Star Wars is one of the few exceptions where the movie came before the books.) So yes reading has it's advantages over film for storytelling, but film has the advantage of not having to bother with descriptions of visuals that writing has to. I have read quite a bit since I grew up without TV for most of my life, and it has played a huge factor in my ability to translate stories in my own writing. Though I have more days wanting to burn all my hours of digital paper piles in a blaze of glory, but what can you do?
I think it's more important to focus on what you're reading and analysing it than simply consuming novels and walking away. I don't read very much, and you certainly don't gain as much insight when you just listen to audio works. But what I do read is good material, books that have won awards. I tend to pay no attention to it being a 'best seller' because all that means is it sold well. And, you would assume that to have sold well it must be a damn good book, but you'd be wrong. Some of the worst writing I've ever read has been in the form of a best seller.
Movies use words? I assume you meant writers. Well, in fairness to me, I didn't say anything about words. I mentioned plot and plot developments. Nothing more. I doubt there's anyone here who is as inarticulate as E.L James here. I would assume that everyone here is relatively comfortable with the size of their vocabulary as well as their ability to use it. Take Cameron Crowe for example. He wrote his novel "Fast times at Ridgemont High", had it published and the adapted it into a movie, so he did it in reverse. To imply that the storytelling process from novels to movies is 100% is just not true.
Haha. No, they don't. I meant to write "Books use words...." Totally buggered that one. Thanks for catching it.
Having light reading goals might help. Pick a small number of books to read before the end of the year. Nothing heavy. Page turners. Preferably standalone novels so you won't feel committed to a series. Some books read is much better than no books read.
I also started with screenplays. My issue is pacing and most of my short stories and novels have things happen way too suddenly. I focus a lot more on action and dialogue than I do with descriptions.
A lot of detail was cut from Pride and Prejudice and the dialogue within that story is great, it takes a lot of reading of books that have complex stories and characters to be able to craft new, simple personalities. Jane Austen was one of the first people to create archetypes of certain characters that we now see in a bunch of modern romance- she pioneered that. So there's something wrong in saying that P & P is simple because that was the start of certain types of character. You could just copy P & P but to make a plot that's different- also plots in today's literature is vastly more complex on average than it was 100 years ago, you need to read a lot of books with different plots. If you make something that is based off of a movie it will most likely be cliche- but if you read a book with an interesting story and another one, another one, and they're all different and unique you will have so much backstory, etc. to work with. Movies are simplified, books are livened.
You might try keeping a stack of books next to the bed and read in bed. That way there's nothing else pulling your attention elsewhere (make sure its after whoopie-time if that applies) and once you open a book you can get drawn in and just read until your eyes or your mind refuse to focus anymore.
