eddie g... your rationale in re being a human male still has me chuckling... let's not highjack the thread any further... i'd love to hear from you 'at home' if you want to chat about the stuff on my site... hope you recovered from katrina ok... love and hugs, m maia3maia@hotmail.com
I take it fairly seriously. Writing pays a number of my bills, so even if I weren't inclined to take it seriously by my nature, that fact forces me to do so. As for going to school for it - I don't have a writing-related degree. Is it necessary to have one to write well? To be a successful writer? In my opinion, no. Is it going to hurt an aspiring writer to get a writing-related degree? No, and I suspect any writer who doesn't already have that education could gain something from it. But it certainly isn't an absolute requirement by any stretch of the imagination. As for the dumbing down in writing style, I do think that many published books reflect this. But I do not agree that a book written in a more sparse, lean style (as often seen on the shelf today) is automatically a poorer book. A lot of what is out there isn't very good, but it isn't simply because they're written in a particular style. For example, in the horror genre (mentioned by the OP), you'll find quite a stylistic difference between Blatty and, say, Richard Laymon. Laymon is very spare in his wording. His writing isn't very complex or "meaty" by any stretch of the imagination. But does that make him worse as an author? I don't think so. Laymon told some good stories. And, incidentally, Laymon actually had a master's degree in English Literature, so I think if you connect the dots in the argument the OP is making, Laymon ought to have been a much different type of writer than he actually was. It is too simplistic to say that a certain field of study is needed, or that any aspiring writer has to approach the art using the same path as others. It seems to me there are many avenues to success and to good writing. Traveling portions of various paths isn't going to hurt anyone's prospects, but if you only travel a single path to get to the same destination, then that's fine too. For some, that path may include formal education, and for others it may not.
@ popsicledeath: I think we're talking past each other. That is, we do disagree about some things, but more of the time it seems we misunderstand the points the other is making. (I do mean "we;" I've done it too.) You seem to believe that I have condemned all creative writing programs as useless. Not so. I said that I'd looked into local college programs as well as some of the good ones, and from what I'd seen personally as well as other writers' experiences, I'd concluded that the really useful programs are unusual. I'm talking about college-level creative writing classes and programs, here. The ones I looked into locally were not useful beyond an extremely basic level, and some of the instructors were in fact incompetent, ignorant or snotty ("we do real writing here, not fantasy or mystery or..."). And I have not yet heard of an MFA program aimed at teaching people how to make it as a pro. I have heard about professors who actively discouraged their students from trying to make a career out of fiction writing, however. Since I cannot advocate the benefits of something which does not seem to me to have any real benefit, I didn't. If that's me being unreasonable, then I am, and proudly so. Now, I have certainly heard good things about a few unusual programs, like that at the University of Iowa and at my own MIT (where I have taken five writing classes so far, with the intention of taking more). I have not said that these are the only programs of worth. Instead I've said that they appear to be exceptional, because most of the useful programs I've heard about -- Clarion, and the Writers of the Future stuff, and the workshops run by pro writers Kris Rusch and D.W. Smith -- are not college-related. The matter at hand was not whether good programs exist. It was whether your typical local program or university program is likely to be useful. My conclusion: marginally. If you need a review of the basics, or if you need deadlines to motivate you, fine. But I can't look at a top university's writing program -- MIT's -- and claim that most colleges are similar. Why should they be? Instead I assume that MIT's writing program is as exceptional as its science, engineering, architecture and linquistics programs. I believe I would be rather more angry at myself if I tried to pretend that MIT's writing program was likely to be normal. I just can't in good conscience make the argument that a school which tries hard to be top ten in everything would mysteriously have an "average" writing program. It's like getting mad at someone for claiming that Harvard's bio program was exceptional. There's no logic to it. So I can't advocate that aspiring writers take college classes in writing. I've taken useful classes, sure. But I've also taken bad ones. And when the useful classes all occurred at MIT, I can hardly assume that similarly good classes would exist at Your Average University, just as I wouldn't assume that Average University would have an on-campus nuclear reactor, either. Because MIT is not normal, and it is unreasonable to extrapolate something MIT does well to mean that all universities will have an equally good version. Clearly, you're free to disagree. Just don't pretend that I condemned formal instruction of any kind when I did not. Saying something isn't necessary or might not be beneficial is quite different from condemning that thing. I suspect I'm more likely to have a simplified and inaccurate view of writing instructors, because I do not believe it is impossible to make a good living from fiction writing alone, and so I don't cut them any slack. But I think my reasoning is pretty solid. Bear with me a moment. I too have heard the "500 people can make a living on writing" claim. But in 2008, there were more than 200 fiction books published every day in the U.S. alone. (47,500 adult fiction books plus 29,400 young adult ficton books, divided by 365 days in the year.) Unless you claim that, in order to make a living at fiction, one must write a book every few days, the math doesn't work out. In fact, assuming that a pro writer finishes four books a year, there would have to be more than 18000 professional writers supplying those books in order to meet reader demand. The numbers are here if you want them: http://publishingcentral.com/blog/book-publishing/bowker-reports-us-book-production-declines-3-in-2008-but-on-demand-publishing-more-than-doubles?si=1 It remains my impression that most creative writing instructors are not professional writers themselves. I am, however, open to the idea that this is either changing, or that I am simply wrong. I would prefer to be wrong, because that means more writing students are being taught by experienced, competent professionals who know their craft. Almost as an aside, I am curious about one of your other points. You mentioned that there were people who were doing the things I recommended on the list but who were not meeting with any success. Are you thinking of specific people, or speculating? I ask because, of course, I had thought the list useful and have not, myself, encountered anyone who followed the list and still failed. Obviously, a list of "this is what you must do to succeed" requires only one exception to prove it isn't so useful as I thought. I haven't encountered such an exception, but if you have I'll go with that. (I'll still think the list is useful as an example of "what works for me," but it's useful to know if others don't reap the same benefit.) Thank you, by the way, for explaining your thoughts where we disagreed. It's a lot pleasanter to find out one is wrong due to some obvious error in logic than to have someone disagree but not explain why, and one of the things I like about this place is that people can often point out my errors so that I can see where I went wrong, instead of just feeling frustrated and dumb.
We did. Thanks. And I do really like your poetry. I continue to read it and was reading some of it before posting this. For the record, I think too much school can hurt a writer. A well-tailored associates degree is enough, then they should travel, travel, travel, and live in all different kinds of places if possible.
Yes, that life experience is worth a lot. I also recommend holding widely varied jobs when you're young. You can pick up a lot of interesting information that way.
Hey, HeinleinFan, Yeah, it seems we were talking past each other, and probably the lack of tone in text-based communication not helping. It did seem you were extrapolating a few bad experiences to a general condemnation, which I took exception with (on multiple levels). This post was clearer to me, so I see what you're saying better. And like I've said, there will always be substandard educators and education. I don't deny that, and in fact it's partially in my career goals to help remedy that fact as best as possible (suffice it to say that how averages work, there by definition will always be below average situations, though, heh). And as a note, I include professional workshops, whether local, vial organizations, or online (like Gotham), in 'formal' creative writing instruction. In fact, it's often were a lot of great things happen, since actual university jobs are so hard to come by. That's why I'm concerned over your experiences. With many/most universities, it's nearly impossible to get a job teaching creative writing without both meaningful publication credits and an MFA. The MFA is the terminal degree, but so many people are getting them these days, publishing credits are nearly essential. And now days people are often expected to have a PhD in creative writing (which ends up being dual focus with lit or comp) or second Master's in a related field, before a English department will even think of hiring a professor. That said, many programs also employ graduate students to teach the lowest level undergraduate courses, and that experience can often be iffy. At my university, it's hit or miss on beginning fiction instructors, but by intermediate and advanced, they're all well qualified and you start getting into the same professors who teach graduate workshops teaching the undergraduate courses, so the quality jumps dramatically. It's kind of cool (and scary) to have a intermediate fiction undergrad class being taught by an international best seller (in literary fiction, which is hard to do) or the editor of a respected literary journal. The thing I hate, and that I hope I can someday help change, is that the intro fiction courses are often taught by grad students who are still finding their way themselves. Not a great way to instill a first impression, and that impression is often what people use to form their opinions, biases and stereotype. The odd thing is I've never once heard someone talk up MIT's writing courses or program. I'm not saying it isn't good, just that I've never heard anyone mention it. In part, I think it proves a point, that while MIT is obviously known for high standards, they're just another random school that teachers creative writing. I'm not even sure they have an advanced degree (MFA or PhD) in creative writing, or at least that I've ever heard. As far as MFA programs teaching people how to make it as a pro, it depends on your definition. I would argue mastering (or attempting to, at least) and having time to write and experiment and study, is teaching people how to make it as a pro. The writing is always the most important thing (and usually the quality) and that's what creative writing programs focus on. So yeah, many aren't directly teaching how to query agents or write treatments, but if a program said "we'll teach you to be a professional writer" would you a) believe them and b) expect them to not focus on writing at a professional level. And that's the aim of most advanced degrees in creative writing: to produce a thesis manuscript that is of publishable quality. As far as publication numbers, we had a NY agent come do a presentation here, and I was shocked when she said 2k sales would be considered a 'success' for a book, and be enough to break even. It didn't seem so hard, only 2k. Then she said that the vast majority of books don't sell 500, and the entire publishing industry is basically built on the rare, few best sellers funding even the chance for the rest to have a shot at breaking even, though mostly funding failures. Same with being an agent. She said most agents end up with their one big name writer that funds the agent being able to take chances on all the rest, that typically won't bring in much money or prestige. Don't know all the numbers and haven't looked into it (too busy focusing on the non-business stuff), but it makes sense from what I've seen and heard, and thankfully most of us are doing it for the passion, not the money. If we were doing it for the money, we'd all be writing romance. Over the years I've been a part of several non-academic writing groups and workshops, and have thankfully met a decent cross section of writers (add to that getting to know writers through online sites and workshops). Most generally know what they need to be doing, and most of it actually does match up to your list. And the examples I cite are from first hand experiences. Writers who want to write romance, and only ever read romance, and never seem to get quite good enough to break into the industry because they're pretty much just replicating what already exists, which doesn't always sell even in romance genres that are the biggest selling. Writer who read voraciously, and just can't seem to read as a writer. I'm involved in a local reading 'for writers' group, and we had to shut it down (and then try to restart it) because it was supposed to be a reading group for writers, but the discussions became useless because people were too fixated on 'I didn't like it' and we found it impossible to discuss craft or technique. These were all people who self-reported as writers, and were serious enough as writers to join a reading group designed to improve writing, and it didn't work no matter what we tried. The other problem is people didn't want to be involved in a 'reading' group if they couldn't get 'advice' on their own work, and the only way to trick writers into reading to improve their craft was to allow them to turn in their own writing. I feel I've seen the good, bad and ugly of writers. The good is of course good. The bad and ugly is pretty bad and ugly, and what fuels my wanting to teach (nobody wants to teach because of the smart kids, but to help those that actually need help). It's pretty dismal out there, though, and why I push writers to look into any and ever angle they can find that may give them an advantage. It's a hard dream to follow, and even harder to actually succeed. Your list is pretty good, and I agree with it mostly, and thought it particularly apt because, as I mentioned, that's pretty much what most writing programs try to do, and what non-academic-tethered writers I've known have done on their own. It's a solid, common-sense list, but still the chance for failure is there. If one does everything they 'should' do, the chance of not making it as a writer is still painfully high. It's just the nature of the industry. There are a disproportionate number of people trying to fit into the few spots that exist as writers in this world, and even many good, proficient writers never catch a break. It's why I agree there isn't any one path to success as a writer, and would go so far as to say the best chance of success is trying to take all paths, finding and taking any and all opportunities that come one's way, and not just counting on one 'method' to work. Friends think I'm nuts because I'm entrenched in the academic setting, but also spend time on forums, online writing groups, the reading group I mentioned, so non-class-required reading and writing, started an additional writing group for those of us ready to pursue publication, am looking into teaching a workshop through a local non-profit literary organization, taking English teaching courses (despite not wanting to teach secondary school, looking to get my technical writing certificate, read in just about every genre, every era, oh, am applying to MFA programs currently... and um, hope I also get lucky. Why all that? Because I don't feel safe any one direction/path/method is good enough anymore. Writing reminds me of the UFC in both competitive viciousness and the idea that any one discipline or marital arts just isn't good enough anymore. It used to be that you could be raised in a system, master that system, and compete. But these days, almost all UFC fighters are cross trained in a multitude of disciplines, have had a variety of coaches, adopted several training programs, etc. So people say you can make it writing on your own, or through formal education. I feel more comfortable doing both, though. I write for class deadlines and expectations, and then write more on my own. I have classes to get feedback, and also online groups, private groups (specifically designed without any 'masters' present, so we can form our own ideas and methods). I read assigned writing in lit classes, and fiction classes, and on my own, and for the separate reading group, and 'fun' stuff. And of course I just sit around doing my own things entirely, as well, including giving myself my own feedback on manuscripts I wrote. I learn from all I do, and different things from different sources, and find all valuable, and am starting to think all will be necessary if I'm ever to succeed. And of course right now I'm on vacation, of a sort, so posts get too long. Apologies.
Edward G,you are so right...i am a writer and i do take it seriously (i'm finishing a novel that i will soon publish...).i have read terrible book,after terrible book and it frustrates me.i look at some of this stuff and i'm like,i could do better!who's publishing this crap! but at the same time,as i went over my novel...i myself saw there could be improvement,hence it being postponed from the original publishing date... a lot of people do not appreciate the art of writing (though i do not know if a degree in writing is a necessity,taking a course is a suggestion.There is no class that can teach you to write a good book or else we'd have better fiction out there...). however,i beg to differ on the fanfiction part...some of the stuff is good.however,i would suggest a fanfiction writer try out their own fiction (i use to be a fanfiction writer but long since abandoned it for writing an actual novel) also,i never really just read to completely enjoy a book...as a writer,i actively study works of writing as i read it.(thats how i know quality has went down big time.i find older books more enjoyable). popsicledeath,now on the subject of slamming genres...truth is,some do allow for worse stuff to turn out,even though i've come across bad books from all over (unrealistic urban novels are number one offenders!so are sci-fi novels that have too much scenery porn/techno-babble,and fantasy stories that are a rip off of something done a billion times!) I do believe a good piece of writing is actually something that moves the reader,makes them feel,and keeps them interested.wheteher the feeling is complete disgust,horror,love, or laughter,make the reader feel. i can't say make them think,because what if its a brainless comedy ?XD! if its a good one ,who really cares? ok,that was a bit of a rant ,wan't it?
You are wrong. There has always been a lot of garbage art in all disciplines. There will always be low-brow art that appeals to the masses. I read the novel Turpentine by Spring Warren a few years ago. It was an amazing read, excellent story and a very well crafted novel. I recommended it to everyone I know, but most of my friends were more concerned with reading the Twilight series (Ugh!). There is some really great new work out there. You just have to dig around to fine it. It isn't likely to be on the NY Times best sellers list, though.
Originally I wasn't going to post a reply to this because I don't think a writer should have to justify his or herself, but I do like to say what's on my mind from time to time! So to answer this, I think I take writing semi-seriously. I know I'm not a good enough writer to make a career out of it, but it has been my passion since I can remember; the only thing I've ever been passionate about, really. I consider myself a writer because I write, not because I want to tell people I write. I actually prefer not to tell people that I love to write. One of my biggest long-term goals in life is to publish a book, but it's not a goal to make money. To finish something and have it out for the world to see will satisfy my needs. When I text or send instant messages or anything like that, I don't use proper punctuation all the time and I abbreviate things quite often, but I know when that "language" is appropriate and when it's not. So now you've got my two cents!
That all makes sense to me. You have a realistic approach to your writing and probably writing in general. Publish your book, you'll get tremendous satisfaction from it. You don't have to achieve greatness to achieve happiness.
"They don’t want to go to school for it. They don’t want to finish a story—they only want to sketch ideas. They don’t read books to speak of. They don’t accept editing suggestions much less critiques. They don’t study fiction writing; instead they just wing it." I take my writing more serious than i have ever taken any other thing or profession, and it is not even my profession-yet. but i hope that in time it will be my second profession. i HAVE signed up for a writing course that will start in march, I HAVE already finished 3 stories so i know i can, i stick to a story until its done, i have the stamina. i try to read as many books as i can although i seem to have a problem dedicating myself to reading while writing the most intensively, it seem to be the one or the other. i would love to have suggestions and critiques, but right now i dont have many people to show my books to that i feel i can give the right kind of feedback. i was thinking, though, about leaving it to my aunt to read, (when this one is ready) she is a journalist, and even though we dont have that much contact i thought her thoughts on it might be useful. I Do study the "techniques" of writing by reading books about it to improve my skills and im enough stubborn to not give in until my books comes out the way i want them to. Actually last night i had such a great moment writing and i got kind of an Aha!-experience that i could actually call a breakthrough, it was really uplifting)) so yes, i do take it reeeeaaally seriously.
I never took writing serious enough to buy a tweed jacket with suede elbow patches . Knowing I would someday write What I did take serious was my reading . I do not believe writers need a pedigree blue blood education but I do not doubt the successful "mutts" are/were self educated by voracious reading
No. If someone cut off my hands, I would not be like, "OOOHH I'll never write again;" I'd be like, "OOOHH how will I smoke cigarettes now?"
No, I don't really take writing seriously. When I write, I do it because I like my imagination, and I want to experience it in text. I do not consider myself a writer, and I don't think I want others to do so. At least not in my daily life. On here...maybe a little. Fanfiction?! When I intend to do any writing within the next several months, I stay as far away from that stuff as I can. Fanfiction forums are teeming with the type of "writer" you describe. Few places exist (Youtube comes to mind) that present more of a danger to your grammar, punctuation, and all 'round writing style. (That is not intended to slur any of the very good writers I have come across in such places.) ~ Mist.
When I first read the thread, I chanced upon this part: I was like - oh shoot! That's me! Then the excuse part of my mind came up with "I'm young." Then, the real part of me said - What kind of excuse is that? This made me think - maybe I don't take writing seriously? And, I agree with this. My way of telling stories is through writing, and writing can be anything. It can be that junk essay the kid who doesn't care if he fails gives to his teacher. But, I take the storytellers seriously. I agree, many junk writers do get in. They have improper sentence structure, even. I won't name names, but it does annoy me. I don't know what we can do about it, however.
I've already commented on this, but I just kind of felt like saying something else. Sorry if this has already been said, is irrelevant, or is just plain unwanted feedback. Rather than attribute the lack of ability in young writers Edward G describes to laziness or lack of training, I think it has a lot to do with the way writing is taught in American schools. I can't speak for every school in every part of the country, of course, but my own experiences haven't been great. I went to public school in a very ritzy area of Southern California, and I think my education has been very good. But in general, writing at school never meant writing fiction. 9 times out of 10, it meant literary analysis. The other 1/10 of the time, it meant spewing out a formal essay for a class like history, government, and occasionally biology, but this tenth did not really come into play until high school AP classes. Writing fiction pretty much never entered the equation, and the closest thing to creative writing we ever did was write personal essays about things like our names or our "goals for the future." In elementary school, we were taught that a paragraph was "like a hamburger." It had a topic sentence (bun), then there were supporting details (meat, condiments, etc), and then it had a closing sentence (bottom bun). Structure, structure, structure. I thought I had seen the worst of this when I entered middle school, and they used the same analogy for a five paragraph essay. FIVE paragraphs. Always. There were exceptions, but five was apparently the optimal number. An introduction with a "divided thesis", 3 paragraphs that supported the thesis, and a closing. Structure, structure, structure. As if this wasn't bad enough, we were taught there had to be a specific heading: name, class, teacher's name, date. Double-spaced, 1" margins, Times New Roman font, and so on. Depending on how our teachers chose to grade, this format might mean that anywhere from 10-25% of our grades came not from whether the essay was well-written or well-argued, but from whether we could spew out the format correctly. The result? I hated writing. It was my least favorite part of school for most of my life. I thought that the single refuge from writing dull essays about the symbolism behind Red Badge of Courage was writing fiction, which I really began to do in sophomore year of high school. I was a novice writer, a little like Edward G describes, although I have never written in text speak or even considered writing fan fiction. But nonetheless, I thought writing should be a medium for "free expression"; my stories were trivial and uninteresting works in which I tried to make myself sound like an adult and tried to be "deep" as I understood it at 15. I wrote entirely on a whim, never finishing anything except a few scattered short stories until I turned 18 and went to college. From freshman to junior years, I despised essay-writing. The heavy structure combined with the minute analyses struck me as idiotic. I went through a tame rebellious phase in which I started to question every single regulation that was set for me. Why did my name have to be placed there? Why was this sentence "unclear"? Why make the thesis the last sentence of the first paragraph? Why come up with such a broad, sweeping first sentence when all I was going to talk about was a particular scene in Animal Farm? Because school forced me to write in such a rigid way, I rejected it. But the rejection, as it turned out, was premature. In senior year, I became one of the best essay writers in my advanced English class. I was capable of churning out an essay in around 30 minutes, and for this minute amount of effort, I could still expect to receive an A. Just to see if I could, I once wrote an essay on the literary merits of "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in which I argued that the theme of the poem was the loss of innocence as one grows older. It was such an easy thing for me to do, that I just plain gave up hating it. There was no point in worrying over how I spent 30 minutes of my life. And as I grew to stop hating essay-writing, I realized that the structure, although repetitive and perhaps over-used, did have something important to offer me. I wrote my first long work last year, and I discovered that fiction is far from "free expression." I spent three months writing it. There were moments I wanted to give up, but I pushed through, improved my prose significantly, and finished a coherent story. I learned that writing is highly structured, even if it is creative. But it took me over 18 years to learn that. School never really gave me the opportunity to even try my hand at creative writing. They beat the rules so rigorously into me that I did everything I could to push them out, and the conclusion I came to, somewhat illogically, was that fiction and creativity didn't take practice; they were "spontaneous" and provided refuge from all the outlining and serious thought that went into essays. But whether or not the school system failed me, I think it's worth mention that I learned to write by actually doing it. I have not had formal training in writing fiction. I don't intend to have much, except possibly attending a college class or two during slow semesters. The ultimate truth seems to be that writing is personal journey for everyone and that there are multiple ways to reach the same destination. Some reach it through formal education and some prefer to learn based on experience. The phenomenon of laziness is very real, I will agree, but I don't think it's harmful. These are people who will either improve at writing on their own or they won't. I don't feel it really concerns me one way or the other. In fact, I'm grateful that not everyone can write as well as I can--it's hard enough to have something published as it is without every Tom, Dick, and Harry writing something publishable! Sorry for this rant. I am overly fond of talking about myself, and labor under the delusion that others care for my opinion.
With new tech, people will do things they never thought of, writers will overwhelm the market, but the good will always stand out. It will make it tougher to get noticed, but if you write something interesting enough, people will notice. IMO this is not the industry to get into if your looking to make money or be famous. It is an art form. Meaning you could write nothing of value for your whole life, or you could write the next blockbuster. If you enjoyed writing either way you win. If you want to be famous there is only one win. Never let the work of writing out weigh the fun of writing. Who in thier right mind would want to research, set up background, research places and people in that background, establish fake people with all their background, then spend months writing a story, that may never turn a profit? Only the person with the love of story telling will do that. People looking to make profit or become famous will look for the easy way out. Just cram some generic characters into a story and ad some blood and gore, maybe some sex, or violence to keep the interest, and send it to a publisher expecting millions. Basically low grade movies. I think its truly sad that movie investors waste money on b(actually c or d grade movies) movies with terrible scripts, when there is alot of good books out there they could make into an average movie without alot of investment. With actual dialog, and believable characters. (will probably still use ketchup for blood though, hey they don't have the cash.) "Money for nothing... and my chicks for free." Doesn't only apply to the music industry. Anyone that thinks there is any job out there that this applies to has not looked at the work involved in whatever money making venture they apply it too.
LOL I thought it was about spending Saturday mornings in PJs playing with my imaginery friends. See I take it very seriously I have changed my view on this I personally think the moment I take my writing too seriously is the time to stop. When it is no longer fun, playful and enjoyable.
This is a good question because it necessitates a bit of soul searching. Some people insist that raw talent is the essential ingredient for a writer, because you either have it or you don't, as if the writing gene was something that was magically bestowed on some people by the swish of Fate's twinkling wand. However, there is also a lot of truth in the old aphorisms such as practice makes perfect, if at first you don't succeed...etc etc. For me, the question of whether a writer is serious or not is whether or not he or she forces himself to write every day, no matter what. That is the absolute crux of the matter, the litmus test, in my view. As to whether or not I display that particular level of discipline and dedication; force myself to get on with it, write every day, come hell or high water...hmm, well. That is the question
