He dismissed every single writer who isn't declared a master. That's an opinion. The term valid or invalid doesn't apply to opinion, only fact. As a judgment it's invalid in that while he personally dismissed the work he speaks for no one but himself. There is a difference between being a professional writer, which says it is your profession, and producing a professional grade product. A publisher is not going to say yes to anyone whose writing, if mixed with that of ten professionals, can be identified as being by an unpublished writer, simply by reading. In other words, they provide professional writing. Calling yourself a writer, as against saying, "I write," when you are not providing professional writing is pretending. And why is your opinion, or that of any individual worthy of mention? The record company who spent the money to record and market his work would say that was a successful project. And they would be right. Until such time as the market for his music and antics dries up he is, demonstrably, successful. And he's making his living through his singing, so he's also a professional. Bullshit. His first novel sold with the help of his friend. His second was rejected for good reason. He edited and resubmitted it and his agent sold it. Joyce was rejected only for his first novel, Dubliners, which was rejected for good reason. It wasn't written well. The publisher printed about 1250 copies total and sold 379, of which Joyce bought 120. Don't you do any research? I'm confused. You're not interested in being published. You're not interested in learning any professional skills. And you say you wouldn't read a textbook on writing technique no mater who wrote it—so one has to assume that attending a class is also out. And, you're not interested in reading the popular fiction that most writers aspire to produce. Yet you have strong views on how people who want to be published writers should prepare themselves for that task. You express strong views on the suitability and recommendations of teachers you've not read and have no intention of reading. My purpose for being here is to pay forward, and help people achieve publication Other than arguing about things you say you're not interested in, what's your goal?
I think the reason why the two of you (who represent the different approaches) disagree is because you have different definitions of the word success. Most writers want to be successful but the definition might differ depending on what kind of literature we want to write. If we want to write commercial fiction the how-to-book approach might be very useful, but if we want to write a future classic who will still be read and appreciated (both for content and craft) many years from now it might be more useful to study other writers and have a more artistic, individual approach. And I can understand that. If one defines selling millions of books as success (that IS indeed ONE way of describing it) I guess E.L James might be considered successful, but for those who want their work to be remembered for other things than being badly written yet selling millions, she might not be the best example of a successful writer. And hopefully we could accept the fact that not everyone has the same standards as we do, and just let everyone practice their own beliefs, instead of trying to convincing each other to change sides or make them realize we are right, because I don't think there's any right or wrong here. It all depends on what we want to achieve and to some extent on our personality, because that affects how we learn.
Excellent point. And I think this gets back to the "emotional underpinning" to which I referred in my post back on Page 3. The definitions of success in this case flow from a lot of other choices, choices that we all make over the course of a reading and writing lifetime. And those choices flow from our values as they evolve. The implication of that, I think, is that if you disparage my definition of success, I may interpret that as a disparaging of my values. And I think that's what we are seeing in this thread, as well as others like it. I'm disappointed that the thread has taken this turn, and for two reasons. One is that we all know that none of the participants in this debate are going to change our minds - not @JayG, not @minstrel, not @thirdwind, not me - and this is the 3rd or 4th time we've looped around this particular track. And in the end, when someone posts a beginner's question, Jay will continue to recommend Bickham and Swain and I will continue to recommend reading more deeply and critically. And neither of us will be wrong, per se. We will each be suggesting what has worked for us. The second reason is that, by having this ongoing, emotional debate, I think we are missing the opportunity to discuss what some of these writers suggest, how it's been used in quality writing and how other techniques may or may not be better. In my previous post, I mentioned a quote I've seen Jay post a couple of times and I invited him to discuss it further. That got blown away by the ensuing discussion. Maybe we can come back to it, because I think it's the kind of thing that might help beginning writers.
I've already mentioned that I'm fine with people using how-to books as long as they understand what I consider to be the limitations of this approach. If you want to follow Swain's advice, go for it. I do, however, need to clear up a few things. What makes a product professional is largely subjective. No two editors are going to make the same corrections on a manuscript, for example. They also may disagree over whether the manuscript is publishable. So anyone who makes a living doing something is automatically a professional? Come on, JayG, you can do better than that. Dubliners is a short story collection, not a novel. While he did rewrite a few of the stories, they were rejected not because they were bad but because they weren't marketable. The same thing happened with A Portrait of the Artist (his actual first novel). He had trouble finding a publisher because of marketability issues. Other famous writers like Ezra Pound and Yeats liked his work and tried to help him publish it. That right there is a good example of how other good writers recognized Joyce's talent but publishers did not. Where did you get this from? It's definitely a wrong assumption. To get aspiring writers to see that reading how-to books isn't necessary. I'm hoping aspiring writers consider all sides of the argument and make their decision based on that, thought I maintain that reading critically is the best method.
How in the hell can you claim to be right—and that's what "not wrong" means—when you can't back up your opinions with anything real. Not the words of a publisher or teacher of writing, and not even personal sales. You forget—or would like to—that I am not giving my opinion on how to write. I'm repeating what editors and teachers say. And using the excuse that you're still researching, and so haven't tried to sell your work changes nothing, because this isn't a matter of belief or faith. Your claim that you're just as knowledgeable as the teachers you mention—that you and they are both "not wrong." is a specious argument. You've not once taken issue with what one of those teachers said, just dismissed them as being just one way of getting there, with your own approach just as valit as what they teach. But respected professionals, who make their living through their writing, say that Swain's book is one every hopeful writer should have. Yet you dismiss him as if everything Swain says is just my personal opinion. I don't think you can use the term "worked" unless it actually has. You're talking about a given approach satisfying you, personally, to the point where you think it worked. Only when an acquiring editor also thinks so can you say it works. You are, as they used to say, counting your chickens before they hatch. And there's your problem. You're arguing matters of opinion and emotion. I'm reporting fact. Hard, verifiable fact. I'm talking about what publishers say, not what I think. Do you really think Dwight Swain and Jack Bickham, and the other people who teach professional fiction writing, stood in front of their classes giving opinion? Their students were paying for fact, and for results. Were the schools not able to point to successful graduates who would be dumb enough to pay tens of thousands of dollars a year to sit in those classrooms. You're talking about issues of style. But you cannot meaningfully develop a style until you know how to put together a page of writing that won't make an editor reach for the rejection slip. How in the hell can you talk about how a given writer handles scene goals with someone who doesn't know the role it plays in the scene?
If you ignore the fact that they agree perfectly that 97% of what's submitted doesn't deserve to be read beyond the first page. And, you ignore the fact that a given publisher is looking for a certain style and genre. Of every hundred submissions only three are thought to be written professionally, but two of them are wrong for that publisher. So before you can even be in the game you need to be in that one percent. Talk to any acquiring editor and they'll verify that. No, I can't, because I deal in facts, and the facts are clear. Look at the definition in first place: pro·fes·sion·al 1. following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain: a professional builder. 2. of, pertaining to, or connected with a profession: professional studies. 3. appropriate to a profession: professional objectivity. 4.engaged in one of the learned professions: A lawyer is a professional person. 5.following as a business an occupation ordinarily engaged in as a pastime: a professional golfer. Your claim was that his wonderful writing was rejected. Marketable means people are willing to pay money they had to earn in order to read it. People weren't. So the rejection was justified. And the fact that there might have been a few people, who would have liked it changes nothing. That manuscript was rejected for cause. If it's not necessary why has your fiction not sold? It all boils down to that. You say your approach is as valid as getting an education from people who have made a study of what works and doesn't work. Yet it hasn't worked for you. You point to dead writers as if you know who they talked to, what they read, and why they made the decisions they did. And you reject the people who actually talk about why they write as they do. Look, it isn't my intention to make this a confrontation. But we're talking about people's careers, and the best way to launch it. So we're screwing with people's lives. A bad decision can literally keep someone from having the career they desperately want. But you say it's your goal to talk people out of getting an education. Would that work in any other profession? Can watching films teach us to be a screenwriter. Hell no. no more that does eating teach us to cook, or walking on a carpet teaches us to weave one. You dismiss the work of professional teachers, one of whom has twelve pages of praise for his book on writing, and suggest that the hopeful writer stands just as good a chance of publication by guessing, or by asking...who? If they ask someone who actually has been published they'll be getting information they could read in Swain's book on technique. So that has to be out, if they're to use your method. They can't attend workshops, writers retreats, or conferences, either. So in reality, what are you saying? And where are the people having success today using the "think" method. I've looked at the NYT best seller list, and right down the list, starting from the top, the writers all had some training of the kind you say you're trying hard to kill. So other than your personal belief, where's the evidence? I can point to the best seller list. I can point to their writing and identify the structural issues you'll find in a good book on writing technique. I can point to the vast majority of posted online work on sites like this one and show where those techniques are not in use. I can point to Jim Butcher, who began to sell his work in his Junior year at Oklahoma U. I can point to the successful writing career of the people who wrote the books on fiction writing. I can even point to myself. What can you point to?
I'm still not sure how you can consider publication to be the thing that separates a pro from everyone else. I mean, people like E. L. James, who wrote Fifty Shades of Grey, make a living from their books, but I wouldn't consider them pros. On the other hand, there are plenty of great writers who couldn't/didn't make a living off their writing and had other jobs. This includes Joyce, Kafka, Poe, and the poet Wallace Stevens. Joyce's works are difficult. It takes a knowledgeable editor to accept a manuscript like the ones Joyce submitted. On top of that, most readers have a hard time with his work because, quite frankly, they don't have the experience needed to tackle some of the stuff Joyce wrote. While I understand that publishing is a business, he wasn't rejected because his writing was bad. Like I said before, he had two great writers backing him up. That has to mean something. I haven't submitted any novels. I have submitted short stories, but they were rejected by magazines like Glimmer Train and The New Yorker, which are two really hard places to get published in. I did get a personal rejection letter, which I'm happy about. I've mentioned before that creative writing is a lot different from other professions. For one, it's easier to teach cooking or weaving than it is to teach creative writing. One reason for this is that there is no authority in creative fiction. There are as many styles as there are writers, which makes it really hard to find the right balance between providing guidance and letting the student figure some things on his own. I never said this. I've already pointed out several writers who didn't read how-to books because there weren't any available. I can point to writers who came from poor countries that had no major literary movement. These writers wouldn't have had access to how-to books or even to someone who could teach them creative writing. I've also mentioned several authors who took no courses in creative writing and still managed to be great writers. Your objection to this was that some of the writers had backgrounds in journalism, to which I responded that the style used in journalism is not the same style these writers wrote it. I even posted an example of Nabokov's writing to illustrate my point. Yet, for some odd reason, you continued to say that being journalists helped them become great creative writers. While I agree that it could have had some impact, it certainly wasn't the main reason for their success. First, if that were true, we would see more journalists becoming great writers. Second, some of the styles these writers used were very experimental and not something you'd find in more formal forms of writing. Not every wants to be on the bestseller list, which is something you don't seem to get.
In our last go-round on this topic, I most certainly did, quoting the advice of a Pulitzer Prize-winning author (whose work is still selling two decades after his death) who not only has written on his own experiences in both honing his craft and publishing his work, but has also donated boxes and boxes of notes and research to the Library of Congress for future generations to study, in an effort to further the craft of writing. You chose not to accept it, and that's fine. But just because you didn't accept it doesn't mean I didn't post it. Your declaration of my argument as "specious" does not make it so. I don't claim any comparison to Bickham or Swain, one way or the other. Because in the end, it's not enough for the writer to be "knowledgeable", (s)he also has to be able to write. But I do understand that knowledge can be acquired in a variety of ways (a lesson I learned well from my grandfather, who was self-educated after 8th grade and rose to have a distinguished career). If you choose not to respect the life choices I've made, it's nothing to me because I know they were the right choices. I don't need to make any "excuses" - certainly not to you. The only reason I even mentioned the factors that might delay one from seeking publication was to make the point that there are other factors that have nothing to do with one's writing ability. Earlier in this thread, @Tesoro made the point that there were different definitions of "success". You have proved his point. No, I haven't taken issue with anything those teachers have said. What I said, and will continue to say, is that in my perusal of Swain's book, I saw nothing that was both helpful and new to me. In other words, whatever I found useful in it, I already knew. Which proves my point that there is more than one way to learn the craft. And if I were the first person who ever used this approach, that would be relevant. But, according to the paper that you posted earlier, the first efforts to systematically present instructional materials on writing fiction appeared in the latter part of the 19th century, so it's safe to say that none of the authors of literary works prior to that time had the benefit of such materials, and that only some of the authors since that time have relied upon them. Clearly, I'm not breaking new ground, here, nor are any of the others who agree with me. It's interesting, too, that there are several other published writers on this forum, and yet none of them have attacked my perspective on learning the craft (and at least one has expressly supported it). At least one has recommended books (not by Bickham or Swain) addressing a specific aspect of writing, saying that it helped him. Only you seem to cleave to such a narrow orthodoxy. I understand your loyalty to Bickham and Swain. And I don't in any way disparage it. But even a writer relying on their advice is still best served by going back and looking for those structures, those methods, in quality writing, noting both their uses and the exception to their uses. What I object to is your presenting them as absolutes. I mean, a guy posts about his wife being upset because he wrote a book when she thought he was working at his job, and your assumption is that she was upset because he didn't follow Bickham and Swain! I'm sorry you've chosen to take this so personally. It taints any discussion we might have.
Yeah, what would she know. She only sold one hundred million copies. An obvious amateur I've looked at a chapter of the story. It's pretty typical romance writer prose. And her target audience was the romance reader. So yes, her writing is on a professional level. People who toss around terms like "Artistic integrity ," who look down on those who have successfully done what they're incapable of doing as less than themselves, and denigrate their writing talent, are deluding themselves. You identify yourself as being of a mind with the writers of "great literature." Well most of the great writer were concerned with writing fiction that sold, so they got to eat. And Samuel Johnson, who created the Oxford Dictionary and who had a huge effect on literature, said, “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.” So that's the attitude the people you think so highly of had. If and when you can get buyers to tell you that your work is serious literature; if and when you can get a publisher to say that, you can talk about other writers who sold their work, from the position of being a peer. But calling a woman who made more money in a day than you'll make in a lifetime not professional is silly. You and I should be so unprofessional. You haven't submitted them because you know they would be rejected. So you can't take the attitude that when you're ready they will sell. And you cannot use the fact that you were rejected by the New Yorker to imply that had you applied to the Podunk Journal you would have been accepted. A rejection is a rejection. No, it's not. And the only people who say that are unsuccessful writers. Do you really think it's easier to learn to be a writer then an MD, a physicist, and a hundred other professions? Were you to decide to write for film or stage, and fail to learn the basics of stagecraft, sight angles, and everything else about the medium you're writing for you stand zero chance of success. Every other profession or trade has a body of knowledge and craft that one must learn. That's a given. Yet you're saying that fiction for the page, uniquely, has no necessity of education, while at the same time is more difficult to learn than any other. Well yeah. If you ignore all the resources, the advice of the publishers, and toss out the accumulated knowledge of centuries of work of course it's harder. Sure there is. You've appointed yourself. Everyone else is writing fiction. Creative fiction is too hard to learn (sorry, I couldn't resist). I'll let Rosanne Cash say it for me. “Self-expression without craft is for toddlers.” You're confusing style and craft. Craft is the tool. Style is how you use it. And you cannot use the tool you don't own. That we can't attend workshops and conferences? Of course you did. You said that education is unnecessary. What do you think they do there, at a seminar, workshop, or retreat? Nonsense. You've pointed to writers who you think had no instruction on how to write. But then you talk about Joyce and the writers who tried to help him get published. Do you really think they never discussed the work, and how it might be improved? And you make the false claim that there were no resources for hopeful writers in the early 1900s. You really need to read this article because it directly refutes everything you say and believe about becoming a writer in the period 1850 - 1930. Saying something doesn't make it true. The style of fiction at that time was journalistic. It wasn't until film arrived and placed their audience on the scene, in real time, that fiction, of necessity, took a sharp turn toward a tight POV and dialog heavy approach. No writer who lived has ever said, "Damn, I hope I didn't make the best seller list." And your dismissing the most popular living writers because they're on the best seller list is absurd. You're in effect saying, "If you want to sell your work, achieve great popularity, and make lots of money, get yourself a writer's education. If you don't, just wing it. And you know what? I agree with that. So in the future just assume that my comments are only addressed to the people who hope to be published and please lots of people with their writing.
And made unsupportable assumptions as to the path that led to publication And you conveniently ignore that were that author to be submitting that work today it would be written in today's style or be rejected. And you, too, conveniently ignore that the most popular writers today did not learn their craft by reading. An interesting contention. You've said that you've been at this deciphering of how people write for many years. But you found lots of what you've learned in that time in a book that could be read in a week. And you don't see value in a new writer starting out knowing things it's taken you years to learn? They're not, of course, if you don't want to be published. The thing you consistently ignore is that demonstrably, the "think" method doesn't work. It hasn't worked for you. It hasn't worked for any of the people shouting that it's a viable way. It hasn't worked for the people posting on the other online writer sites. If the approach worked we would have lots of published writers posting here supporting you. We all like reading. So why hasn't it worked for all but a tiny few? When you point to the writers who supposedly achieved success in the way you suggest they're long dead, and a tiny fraction of those published. Last year there were over 45,000 novels published. If even a small fraction of them made it without instruction why are they not posting articles to that effect? Why are the writing courses still using textbooks rather than telling the students to go out and read? If it worked a walk though the stories posted in the workshop wouldn't show the same beginner's mistakes over and over, made by decent, sincere people, who are being told by all the other decent sincere people, "Just read, and write, and it will come to you." But it doesn't. Demonstrably it doesn't. Maybe you can make it work for you. If so, more power to you. But it doesn't work for the vast majority of writers. And telling those people that the approach you espouse is as viable a way of becoming published as by having successful writers tell them what works and what doesn't, is doing them no service. Why would I care that his wife was upset? That's his problem. But tell me. What did he learn that was at all useful by typing a novel using the nonfiction techniques we learn in high school? He had no clue of how to present dialog, organize a scene, manage tension, and all the other things a working writer takes for granted. You would advise him to just write, and to spend time painstakingly analyzing novels, so as to eventually know what he would learn in a few days time with a good book on writing. If experience is a ladder, education is an escalator. This post has been edited for content that violates Forum Rules. This violation has invoked a one-month temporary ban. Please know that such temporary bans are only ever given once. The next step of corrective action for a serious violation is permanent restriction from the forum. Wreybies
That's new. I understood that Workshop posts are never pulled from this forum, because the critiques they fostered are always valuable. Even banned former members still have their Workshop offerings intact. Have I missed something? I know I haven't pulled any of mine.
I only have my own personal experience to add as a (very) inexperienced writer. I recently read Swain's book, and it has helped me tremendously. As I stated on the first page of this thread, "Reading other books with this knowledge has allowed me to view them in a different light. I used to think in terms of 'this writing really flows well' or 'I became emotionally invested in this character,' and then I tried to repeat it without really understanding why it worked. Now, I think in terms of 'there was great proportionality here,' 'the pattern of emotion was followed for readability,' and "the tension peaks and valleys were contrasted well." As Swain states in the beginning of his book, he doesn't want you to follow all of his rules. He doesn't even concretely define every rule. Maybe rule isn't even the right term for what he's offering. Either way, he gives you general rules and then tells you what effect they have when done correctly. Because he tells you why he advocates a certain rule, you can make an informed decision on when to follow them and when not to. His "rules" don't limit creativity; they refine it. If you want a certain effect, you can know precisely where to insert it into your book for maximum efficacy. Those effects should be what writers strive for and not convolution for its own sake. An argument over how much originality can be present in a book for it to sell is another argument, but I don't see it being related to this one. Overall, I don't think there is any reason to believe these books inhibit creativity. They don't offer any hard rules that must always be followed, and the books provide explanations so you can judge them for yourself. So I can't think of any possible negatives. On the other hand, there are many, many positives that can come from it. You can build your base around a conception that has proven to sell, and you can branch out from there however you want in an informed way. I don't see why anyone would be against something that doesn't have drawbacks and could have benefits. For me, the argument over whether anyone has ever been successful at writing without proper instruction is a legitimate thing to answer. However, regardless of its answer, I don't see why anyone should ever not recommend these books to aspiring writers. Reading these books could help, and I don't see them inhibiting anyone even if they want to be only the next Kafka or Joyce. I would still advocate for reading a lot also, but it would be in addition to these books not as a substitution.
@JayG, It's almost mind boggling how right you are. The classiest thing you could do now is let the conversation rest. Your arguments are great, but it's starting to read like you're talking to a wall, which...think about it.
Whoa, got a bit heated there for a moment. This thread concerns developing writing skills, please keep that in mind while posting. Also, try to be polite to each other, even if you feel frustrated or like talking to a wall. Thanks.
Now, that's interesting. Very interesting. Of course you can't comment on it. Because I have never posted work here for review. Not ever. We have now moved from the realm of misquoting to deliberate lying. I guess the misquoting wasn't an accident.
Members are NOT able to remove their threads from the Workshop. The option is not afforded, at a technical level, and mods do not remove Workshop threads - even for members who have been permanently banned - much as we might sometimes wish to. The reasoning is simple: The critiques given by other members in the Workshop are as much their work as the OP's post is his/hers. Were we to remove threads on request, the critiques would go with them, and we are not about to start entertaining tedious methods to somehow retain those critiques in some other thread or any other such shenanigans. We make it very clear that once you post in the Workshop, your post is there to stay. We do not mince words. On another note: Using member Workshop posts as passive/aggressive muck-flinging source.... Wow. I am gobsmacked at the primordial level of disrespect this represents. Shall we start picking up thighbones and clubbing one another? I am not happy at all.
Yes, I was just thinking that all the comments about how terrible the quality of the Workshop posts here is (amateurish, ignorant, uninformed, etc. etc. etc.) does make a person want to post anything there at all.......!
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't consider her a pro because I wouldn't read her books to learn to be a better writer. I agree, but not everyone is concerned with being a millionaire (more on this below). Some writers are content with making enough to live comfortably. No, I haven't submitted them because I haven't finished them. Well, if it helps, I have had poetry published. The only basics a writers needs to learn are punctuation, spelling, grammar, etc. In short, he needs to learn to use language correctly, and even then the rules can be bent or broken to suit one's needs. At the end of the day, writing is nothing more than putting one sentence after another. How you choose to go about this is a personal preference. My objection is to the claim that one must read how-to books in order to be a good writer. I said nothing about conferences or workshops. But I'll go ahead and say that a writer isn't required to attend workshops/conferences in order to be a better writer. That's different from reading a how-to book. What he did was get other writers' opinions on his work, which I encourage. All the dissertation says is that different writers at the time had different opinions about how writing should be taught. If you read further down, the dissertation mentions that Henry James thought teaching writing was a futile task. Also, the dissertation mentions that Dickens and his friend co-founded some sort of guild to aid writers. I looked it up, and it was a place that had performances of plays and provided retirement homes for writers. I don't think it was used to specifically teach creative writing. Going back to Joyce, Ireland was a very poor country in the early 20th century. There was no literary movement to speak of. Therefore, I find it very unlikely that Joyce ever had access to how-to books or creative writing classes. Read an article from a newspaper from the early 20th century and compare that to, say, Faulker's The Sound and the Fury or As I Lay Dying. You'll find that there's a huge difference in the styles. Not everyone wants to make the bestseller list and get rich. Some writers are writing for a small audience. I am one of those writers, and I know there are several others on here that feel the same way. Not all writers are the same. Honestly, it worries me that you don't get this. I'm dismissing some, not all, writers. I'm pretty sure Cormac McCarthy made the list because of the popularity of The Road, and I have nothing but respect for that guy.
You gotta write your own stories. And critically analyze other stories to discover how stories work. Some of the how-to books are very good, but hard to understand unless you use them to solve your own story problems. Which means writing.
This has been a really interesting discussion, and I can see some merits in both arguments. All I ask is, Jay, can you point me in the right direction to where I can find some of your fiction writing? I think you talk a lot of sense, in terms of the craft and tools for writing, but I would be really interested to see the end-product of your views i.e. your writing. I think more can be learned in reading the fiction itself than how-tos (Although they have their uses too, I'm sure) Thanks ***Edit: Ignore this, just had a look at your profile and found some of your books
Here are a few tips and tricks you can use to develop your writing skills and create a great piece of work. Whether you're writing an essay, a short story or a magazine article, it's essential that you're able to clearly communicate your ideas to your readers. http://www.wikihow.com/Develop-Your-Writing-Skills To write a transfer college essay you need to be fairly introspective and insightful with your understand of yourself and what you can do, you want to be emotional and convincing while also being informative, and you need to find ways to present yourself as unique and distinguishes from the rest.
