I would like to add Hunter S Thompson to the above list. I just genuinely can't comprehend the arrogance of the mindset that says 'I can't be arsed to read literature (of any description, it would seem) but I watch T.V. and movies (which also have writers, by the way and therefore are a legitimate medium of study) to seek inspiration. I also write and expect to garner a readership for my work, though don't expect me to read any of the literature the world, in turn has to offer me. The X factor's on in a minute.'
My competitive side is pushing me to do everything better: improve my grammar, my vocabulary, my ability to control my writing (i.e. no accidental POV slips, no unintended breaking of literary "rules" [when I do break them, and I do, I want it to be a conscious choice for a reason] etc), my ability to create interesting characters (somewhat subjective, I know, but even the character types I like can be done well or poorly), interesting yet not-too-confusing plots and worlds, my ability to come up with fresh ways to express old ideas or concepts etc. etc. Everything that has anything to do with the art of writing a story. My goal is not to write crap that sells well or to write a literary masterpiece that will win every literary award in the world post-humously and will etch my name in history books but sells one copy while I live. My goal is to write what I consider a good story, i.e. one that is entertaining but of good quality and will hopefully sell well too 'cause I could use the money although I have other sources of income. Of course, that doesn't dictate what or how I write: I produce the kind of stories I like and won't alter them to sell, but if someone else likes them, that's a bonus and a nice one at that. I actually haven't read Faulkner and don't / didn't know the man, so I have nothing against him, but if I'll be more successful than him one day (both commercially and artistically), that'd be great of course, I have nothing against that either although I have no delusions of grandeur: it will probably never happen and our writing probably doesn't even come close to the artistic depth of somebody like Faulkner, but one can always dream and pursue those dreams with all they got. I think I get your point because I have a vague suspicion it's similar to what I was trying to make. For instance, your friend might say "I just ate a sammich and it was so bad it made me puke and crap my pants at the same time." And then it spurs the idea in your literary brain: "Hey, what if my character was actually bulimic and has to avoid eating in public 'cause the bulimia is so far along that whenever she eats anything, her gag reflex kicks in and she pukes it almost instantly!" Okay, that's a dumb idea, but it serves my point; you get an idea that's sorta kinda related to what you heard / saw / read somewhere, but it's not about copying the thing you observed, but, rather, it inspired an idea and took on a life of its own and the original source of that idea wouldn't realize they were the inspiration unless you specifically pointed it out to them. Just like in my music example: I remember watching one of the earlier Harry Potter movies a long, long time ago and there was one three note passage in a longer melody in the background music and although it went on differently, those three notes inspired a melody in my head that had a similar harmony (not quite the same though) although the melody itself that it inspired was different from the one in the movie (in a different key too). It turned into a metal-ish song with some renaissance influence thrown into the mix. Even I wouldn't recognize its original source of inspiration if I didn't know where it came from, so yeah, I'd call that an idea derived from someone else's work. I've observed that the more I expose myself to art, the more ideas I get. I have no idea whether that's "learning to have ideas" or not and I don't really care as long as I get plenty of... you guessed it: ideas. Did I understand you correctly?
Book Monk heard the reassuring crack of the hardback’s spine and smelt the delightful scent of the fresh folio that almost tickled his nose. ‘That paper is very sharp,’ he mused, ‘I might acquire a paper cut, my flesh sliced by thin paper mmmmm, nnnng, eurghh, what have we here ommmy god, Stephen….euhhh….Stephen King….spooky…ohhh…mystery.’ Later our Book shithead read a quite inspiring piece, about the junk scene of Louisiana in the 1940s. How those Jazz types jived. Bookworm felt entirely worthy as he considered what great opus would satisfy his enquiring spirit. He sat out on the porch watching the lesser folk kick their footballs across the street. Suddenly James Michener’s epic novel Hawaii crash-landed on his face, the volume had possibly been tossed from an aeroplane by some geriatric executive in a failed suicide attempt, no doubt. ‘Umm, yes I shall read Chaaaarles tonight,’ said the pious one, rubbing his destroyed chin, for he was now entirely chinless. ‘Yes Charles Bukowski, hew hew, how very educational. I am entirely nourished…’
How very America-centric you are in your literary analysis! Your post brought to mind an interesting quote I found from Luis Bunuel - Nowadays I genuinely believe we live in a cultural dark age. It's difficult to find anything truly original now. However, I may not be reading the right books...
I think the problem is, there are too many voices. Think of a singing group or chorus. Once you get to a certain point some of the voices are pretty much useless and get drowned out and you only hear the loudest and best ones.
It's equally arrogant to think you can read some of Hunter S Thompson’s work and become a successful writer, too. At least that’s pretty much what your distasteful reply suggested your type to be like. You attempt to ridicule others who don’t do exactly what you do yourself, yet all you accomplished was depicting irony in your own personality. There are no prerequisites in any creative arts. In terms of writing, it’s simply about writing, and getting your work read by people other than yourself—that’s how writers grow. Inspiration can come from anything, not just books. I myself do read, but I still can’t refute the idea that under very specific circumstances someone who doesn’t or hasn’t read a single novel in their life can’t write a damn good one themselves. It’s just a massive coincidence that most creative types are fans of their own practice.
Folks, leave out any ad-hominems and other such personal attacks. They bring nothing to the discussion and only distract from the subject at hand. Thanks.
Where have I ever alluded to being in anyway, even remotely trying to emulate Hunter S Thompson in my writing? A small injection of satire into a debate that's becoming increasingly tedious and you're casting aspersions. I mentioned Thompson as I felt he was a glaring omission from the Americentric list of authors quoted by @minstrel on the previous page. I've read some of his work and enjoyed it, many years ago I might add. Well done on the reading. You enjoy writing too? Good work lad, what a coincidence that turned out to be. Oh, and what exactly is my type? I'm curious to see what conclusion you've arrived at based on a few posts on an internet forum.
@Mackers and @outsider: I wasn't talking about world literature in that post. I specifically stated "In the USA ..." because I was responding to @Bartleby9's post, which seemed to be about the state of literature in America. I do not mean to imply that American literature is the only literature that counts (I'm originally Canadian, for Pete's sake!). If my post gave off that smell, I apologize. It was not my intention to dismiss or ignore the literature of the rest of the world.
I thought I was making a witty, observational word play as well. I'll take getting the interpretation correct, though.
I don't know how arrogance and ego have come into play in this conversation, nor how my OP was translated into reading sucks; not liking to do something does not equate it with being useless. 1. Very few authors have successfully stolen my imagination away and lost me in their own. If I were to list the ones who have, most of them would be scoffed at. 2. I read slow. It takes me longer to read a book than most; if my attention is lost, there is a greater chance of me not finishing it. The written word, like any other art form, is meant to be enjoyed not to be a tedious task. I love classical music. I don't study it; I can't name a ton of composers. Still, my life would be less without it. Take baseball, for instance; there are people who spend the entire game making little marks on a card describing every act in every play. They can tell you the combine average ERA for every major league team for every year. Do they enjoy baseball more than the next fan?
Just a quick word on this: reading, like any other skill, improves with practice. I used to be a slow reader too, but now I can finish a few hundred pages in a day (not a particularly fast pace, but faster than I used to be) if I have enough free time.
I hope you're not forcing yourself to read stuff you think a writer should read. I read old Zebra horrors ( practically bottom of the barrel junk - but I like them ) also, you could read biographies, non-fiction books, National Geographic articles and that would count. Reading doesn't have to be limited to any one thing, genre, type. 12 poems could inspire you more than 12 books.
