I agree. I know many good readers who aren’t good writers. From a different perspective, I don’t think reading helps improve writing as much as writing helps improve reading. I think writing helps improve reading much more than that reading help improve writing. I don’t think a good reader is more likely to be a good writer.on the other hand, I think a good writer is more likely to be a good reader.
I think learning certain elements of craft are hugely important, like how to take a character on a journey, archetypes along the way, how to change a character, how to work in underlying messaging and so on. You kinda have to explore and learn it yourself but I recommend https://www.youtube.com/user/clickokDOTcoDOTuk/videos
I agree with you that a good writer is more likely to be a good reader, because that's a necessary tool for good writing. But how does that writer get to be a better writer? By reading. And not just reading, but reading thoughtfully and carefully. Good writers can't help but improve their writing because they see all the things that other writers have done, both effective and ineffective. They've osmosed much of what they know from seeing what's been done before. They've learned the importance of clarity, of the use of the right word for the job, of understanding what the reader needs to know in order to appreciate the work. That's what "good reading" is all about. What is a "bad reader?" One who doesn't get out of a piece of writing all that the writer put into it, who doesn't catch the allusions and references, who ignores the emotional tone of the piece, who doesn't grasps facts and viewpoints that have been clearly laid out by the writer. One acquires these skills by getting exposed to as much good writing as possible, and if the reader isn't up to the task, there's no point in expecting that reader to become a good writer. As you said, it doesn't necessarily follow that a good reader will be a good writer, any more than a person who appreciates a football game could be expected to play it on a professional level, or a person who appreciates classical music could be expected to be first chair at the symphony. But they don't need to be good writers. Their job is to support the good writers financially and maybe to tell others how good the writer is. If it weren't for them, there would be no audience for the writers.
Would it be ok if I copy and paste this into my MS Word? I like this idea! I want to take note of it.
Yeah, just because good readers don't necessarily make good writers doesn't mean that wide, thoughtful reading isn't essential for good writing. The only exceptions I'm aware of are gifted storytellers strongly rooted in a rich oral culture- and rich oral cultures are fast disappearing. The average person now, who isn't widely read, is going to be informed instead by movies, TV, video games, etc. which is rarely material for good literature. So yes, it's important to read a lot, and important to read beyond one's genre and one's immediate interests. Incuriosity and parochialism are banes to good writing. For instance, the great fantasy epics- LOTR, Book of the New Sun, etc.- would not be possible if the authors were not well-steeped in history, religion, philosophy, etc.
Certainly! But if you distribute it, make sure the credit is to me, John LaTorre (I guess that's what you'd call a "copyleft").
And those storytellers heard hours and hours and hours of storytelling from other storytellers. In fact, they were usually required to learn hours and hours of storytelling by heart, word for word, and to teach those stories in turn to other storytellers. Hal Holbrook memorized enough of Mark Twain's work to be able to recite it "ad lib" in his performances. I think I remember him saying that he had about twenty-five hours memorized, so he could pick and choose from that stock the stories he wanted to tell that particular audience. He and Garrison Keillor are the only two people I know who achieved wide fame as storytellers in the modern era.
