You misunderstand. Just because there are numerous ways to write a story, that does not mean that every way "works" or is executed properly. There is also the matter of the personal tastes of the reader. Millions of people (including both my nieces) think LOTR is a masterpiece. Me, I dozed off half way through the first volume. Nothing against Tolkien, I just don't get it. OTOH, as I noted before, I love the writing of James Michener. My wife, who majored in English Lit, is bored silly by him. Who's right? Well, both of us. I read what I like, she reads what she likes. I can tell immediately (because we've been married for 37 years) whether a book I am reading will connect with her or not. And there's the crux of the difference. When you solve a calculus problem, you only have to solve it once. And if it's right, it's right. By contrast, a writer has to get it right with every reader. The trick is to get something that will "get it right" with a lot of readers...if you want to be successful, that is. But each writer will ultimately express himself his own way.
This is a strawman fallacy (easily attacked false analogy). Calculus is a specific methodology for solving certain types of problems. It is not an end in itself. The writing equivalent is the fundamentals of grammar and punctuation, for which reference material is certainly advisable. How-to books on writing are like instructional guides on creating fine art. Neither has any value without having many examples to learn from, AND the eye to discern quality and technique. The latter, in particular, you will not get from an instructional guide. In fact, your appreciation will be all the better for discovering the craft behind the art by your own observations. If you are looking for a feature, and don't already recognize it, you'll see that feature everywhere you look, except where it was truly present. In effect, you start looking at the world through a distorting lens. In fact, I would even point to being unable to perceive the difference as an example of it.
Quality of the end product is not dependent on the methodology. That is where the creativity and craftsmanship comes in, as well as (as mentioned above) individual tastes of the readers.
Yeah, I have to agree here. And to echo Ed's words "Just because there are numerous ways to write a story, that does not mean that every way "works" or is executed properly.", all we're talking about here is the different ways one can take to a given end goal. This is no different than is planning better than pantsing or vice versa. There is no better. Both are paths that can and have been taken.
@JayG, since this is a more appropriate thread for this issue, I'll answer your questions here. I can name at least a few famous writers off the top of my head who had no training in writing. Some examples include Faulkner, Nabokov, Vonnegut, Cormac McCarthy, Ernesto Sabato (he earned his PhD in physics; not so famous in the US but he's won some of the most prestigious awards offered by the Spanish-speaking literary community), Joseph Conrad, Pynchon, and Steinbeck. Stories were more journalistic? Really? Take a look at modernist literature, which was extremely popular in the early 20th century. The way in which modernist works are written is not at all close to anything found in journalism. You can even go back to the 19th century, and you'll find a huge difference between the literary style of the time and your typical journalistic style. There are two reasons I can think of for this. One is that publishers can only take on a finite number of manuscripts, and even then, not every manuscript is going to do well. Book buyers only have a limited amount of money to spend on books, so even if we have a thousand great contemporary writers in the market, not all of them are going to be successful. The second reason why people aren't successful is that they don't put in the time required to read and to think about what makes the writing good or bad. So in a sense, yes, there is specialized knowledge. It just can't be found in books that teach you to write fiction. I don't agree with him at all. In fact, books that teach fiction can stifle one's creativity. Do you think we would have works like The Sound and the Fury or Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow if their authors had followed books that teach fiction? Some things can't be taught when it comes to creative writing. They must come from intuition, creativity, and experience. No, I don't have anything significant publications to show you, if that's what you're asking. But you're more than welcome to take a look at some of the books published by the writers I listed above. That should be proof enough. Well, of course a book on writing fiction is going to argue that aspiring writers need such books. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
How-to books aren't bibles; they just offer another avenue of insight, like everyone in this forum. Hemmingway may not have read Jack Bickham's Scene and Structure, but I'll bet my bell-bottoms that he spoke with other accomplished writers. Reading both how-tos and fiction won't kill you.
Hemingway lived in Paris in the 1920s and met writers such as Ezra Pound and James Joyce, but I don't think there is anything to suggest that he derived any of his style or approach from them. One of his biographers, Carlos Baker, suggested that he relied on them for more practical help in getting his writing career started. I certainly hope not.
Oh gosh I misspelled the man's name. Very likely true, but some here are arguing that style and approach is not what is sought from these infamous how-to books. Kind [of like] reading a guide on how to draw all kinds of hands, perfecting the hand, then using that information to draw a melting hand that depicts um... loss of political power? (Example fell apart at the end, but I think you know what I'm trying to say.) Mayhap he showed some of his work to one of these writers, and was told that his sentences were too long?
If he showed his work to Joyce, he might have gotten some feedback on what worked and what didn't. But I'll bet real money he didn't get a discourse on how to hold the reader's interest. I'd also be willing to bet that his crisp style was his own doing, considering how original it was.
Really? I doubt it, based on three and a half years of being a member here. The vast majority of the members here haven't yet completed the manuscript of a novel yet, at least not to their satisfaction. Some who have, haven't submitted it to any agents or publishers. Others have written stories that just aren't very good, or (no offense to anyone here) are too obviously imitations of currently-popular fantasy stories. None of this has anything to do with failures of basic technique; it has to do with the fact that most of us are young and are just getting started in writing. Point 1: Not everyone here defines success the same way you do. Point 2: Large sales depend not just on the quality of the writing (or the professionalism of the technique), but on marketing, and most writers, especially inexperienced ones, aren't good at that. Once again, you're defining success as making lots of money. You've also said on more than one occasion that writing is a profession, and it isn't, at least for most of us. We regard it as an art. Of course, we would like lots of people to love our art and buy it, but that's not why we're writing it. We're writing it because it's ours; it's the way we express our creativity. You might say we'd sell more if we followed the advice of Dwight Swain, but we don't want to be hacks. Swain was a hack, and I think, based on what I've found out about him, he'd be proud to be called one. As I said once before, a guy who writes two-for-one novels with titles like Bring Back My Brain! is not seeking a Pulitzer Prize. If we had to write like Swain, we'd give up writing, because if we have to abandon ourselves to get sales, we'd rather not get sales. (At least, that's true of me and at least some others here.) James Joyce never compromised. He created art, and is widely recognized now as one of the greatest writers in the history of the English language. I'm sure critically-acclaimed bestselling writers like Don DeLillo and Thomas Pynchon would laugh at Swain's how-to-write book, and carry on pursuing their own vision of their work.
I totally agree with this view. If you read how-to books because the notion of becoming a writer seems attractive, then you'll end up following whatever formula for success the individual author recommends. Writing by numbers. I think that's a bassackwards way to approach becoming an author. I bet your formulaic story will be dull and forgettable, even if it's mistake-free. I think you need to be a storyteller, first and foremost. I don't mean one who sits in front of a group of people and tells stories (although that might be a plan!) but one who has a story to tell. If you don't have that, then you really have missed the point of writing. The way I became a 'storyteller' is through reading other books written by other people. I didn't 'study' the writing techniques of these people, but absorbed their stories and became aware of what a well-told story sounds (reads) like. Then I made up stories of my own, in my head, for many years. Then, eventually, with the advent of the wordprocessor which gave me the freedom to chop and change, I wrote my own. THEN I got hold of quite a few how-to books on writing. Because I'd already 'written' I knew exactly what these books were talking about, and had no hesitation in taking their advice when I started editing the book I wrote. In many cases I did a lot of re-writing, even re-envisioning. But the core idea of my story was, and still is, mine. I'd say, use both methods. Create on your own AND study with others. But do the creation thing first.
cog... did you really mean that?... if so, it seems to indicate that you see how-to writers in a very positive light... or did you really mean 'beneficiaries'?
Here's a Guardian site titled Rule For Writers that gives many 10 tip editions from successful contemporary writers. @thirdwind, some of the tips are condensed recommendations, of similar topics, that me be found in How-to's, and may, just as Medusa turned lookers into stone, steal your creativity -- if you dare read them. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Some of those "rules" are not really writing rules. Take Atwood's rules about using a pencil over a pen or doing back exercises for example. Most of these rules don't talk about how to go about writing fiction. It's fairly general advice, like suggesting reworking weak passages or paying close attention to opening paragraphs. That's something that can be learned without fiction guides.
The rules in books on writing aren't really rules, so much as guidelines that some follow and others do not. With any set of rules, you have to look at what they're trying to accomplish and decide whether they're in alignment with your own goals. You can go to the bookstore and find books (traditionally publishes, successful, and even by first-time authors) that ignore most of the rules in books set forth on writing, and that really tells you all you need to know.
@thirdwind Just once I wish someone who points to supposedly uneducated people who were successful writers would look at at least, the Wikipedia entry. Faulkner had a deep interest in becoming a writer, and worked very hard at becoming one. His mentor, William Stone worked tirelessly to see that the young Faulkner got a writers education. And in fact, his first novel was rejected, and only after heavy editing by his agent was it accepted. That’s not exactly what you were hoping to demonstrate, but it is reality. And of course you and I have not a clue of if and when he discussed technique or read things like Robert Louis Stephenson’s essays on writing, which were available in his public library. Nabokov was the son of a journalist at a time when fiction was presented in a journalistic style. He attended Trinity College in England. Do you know what books he read there, and what interests he pursued? Of course not. Yet you make the blanket statement that he just sat down and decided to write, without having done anything to educate himself in what publishers expected to see in a manuscript. You're also assuming that the structure of his writing, as against his personal style has nothing in common with what's taught today in courses in writing. Vonnegut, of course, was interested in journalism during his years at MIT, and worked on their newspaper, where pros would advise him on how news was written. And he worked for a newspaper in Chicago. And he was a full time techwriter for a time. And he taught writing at the University of Iowa. So before this man sold a word he was a trained writer. In other words, a bad example of what you're trying to demonstrate. Several things a hopeful writer should do: First, in common with every other profession, is to acquire the skills that are unique to that profession. Another is to always do the necessary research. • There are two reasons I can think of for this. One is that publishers can only take on a finite number of manuscripts, and even then, not every manuscript is going to do well. Nonsense. You need to actually talk with agents and editors—and do your research. The vast majority of what publishers receive as submissions is, by their labeling, amateur. In fact, in the agent’s office, only three out of one hundred submissions received are seen to be at a professional level, and only one of those three are thought to be right for that house. In other words, 99 out of 100 writers have not done their homework and research as they should have. It’s not what you or I think matters, it’s what your customer says. And our customer is the publisher. The reader is their customer. What should be doesn’t matter. We all deserve success. We’re all sincere in our desire to please a reader. But so what? You, your intent, your dedication, and what you deserve are irrelevant when someone else picks up that manuscript. It’s your words and their perception of their meaning that matters. I don’t doubt your desire to write well or your intentions. But you know what they say about good intentions. We all want to be a writer. Becoming one? That’s is a good deal harder. And anything that well ease that journey, be it mentoring, education, self-study, etc, is way ahead of simply saying, "This is what I think I should do." Knowledge is a damn good working substitute for genius. If you spend a month working with a mentor, or studying you'll gain a months worth of experience. If you simply sit at the keyboard and type for a month you'll get a days worth of experience repeated thirty times. • No, I don't have anything significant publications to show you, if that's what you're asking. But you're more than welcome to take a look at some of the books published by the writers I listed above. You’re making the assumption that your view of those books is true and accurate, but we’ve already seen that those authors, none of whom would be able to sell a word today using the style of their time, weren’t as uneducated as you believed. But forget that. The measure of any advice is that it works for the one giving it and the one receiving it. Demonstrably, it hasn’t yet worked for you. Why not? I’m not particularly talented, but by using the structural ideas and compositional techniques taught in the various universities I’ve managed to con a few publishers into offering a contract. How can it be that I, with no more writing talent than you did that? Once might be luck, I’ll agree, but it’s more than once, and the only difference between us is that I’m using a different structural model, one you feel isn’t necessary. I really don’t want to make this a personal confrontation, and I’m not trying to beat you over the head. That’s not fun for either of us, and this isn’t the venue for that sort of thing. I’d like to keep this within the framework of a literary discussion that is constructive and useful to the other members. But you’ve made some very strong assertions without presenting tangible proof of it operating for writers, today, who hope to achieve some measure of success in having their work read as well as those we look up to in the publishing world. If those assertions result in success in the here and now, when emulated by people equivalent to the members of this forum I certainly can’t argue with their success. But you’ve not shown that as yet. For example, if I take the top authors on the NYT best seller list for the past year who have Wikipedia entries, all of them show a background that contains a writing education. Can that be coincidence? No guarantees, but with a bit of luck… Craft without talent = sales to a publisher. Craft with talent = a top selling author. No craft plus talent = don’t give up your day job.
@JayG, I'll make this quick because I have papers due and exams to study for. Regarding the authors who studied journalism, I want to make two points. First, I've read the biographies or autobiographies (such as Nabokov's Speak, Memory) of most of the people I listed, which is why I was confident in listing them. In the case of Cormac McCarthy, he said in an interview that he hates creative writing classes and is against them, so he's the extreme case here. Second, learning journalism doesn't translate to being a great writer, as I pointed out when I mentioned the modernist movement (the same applies to realism, naturalism, etc.). I'm not even sure why you're saying that writing in the journalistic style was the norm back then because it wasn't. If you don't believe me, here's but one example of many: Let me just add that I'm not against writers educating themselves. A lot of writers have English degrees or other similar degrees, but I'm pretty sure the curriculum doesn't involve reading how-to books. Even university creative writing courses tend to focus on critique, theory, and closely studying works of fiction. At the end of the day, I guess we just have to accept that we have different views about this.
I don't think there is such a thing as a writing rule. I think there are accepted practices that yield a greater chance of success of reader satisfaction. I think there are lot of ways to skin a cat, and, a lot of ways to quickly ruin an otherwise good job. I think we are supposed to take an amorphous concept and structure it into a cohesive story. I think there are lots of ways of accomplishing that. I think that societal expectations and tastes change. I don't wear bell bottoms anymore, okay, not in public anyway, and they were the rage back when. I'm glad we had this discussion. Thank you for your thoughts on it.
I still believe it boils down to the question of determining who to listen to and who not to (meaning authors of how-to books). Take any two books and they will contradict each other. So what do you learn? That you can take one author's advice and waste your time and be frustrated, or you can take the other author's advice and waste your time and be frustrated. If you're lucky, you'll find some little tidbit that works for you. But if you have already done some reading, already done some writing, already done some critiquing, you are better able to filter out what advice sounds like it would fit your way of working. You may still waste some time and be frustrated, but at least it won't be as much of either.
Of course there is - which is why one has to be able to discern, among all these how-to books, which ones have the advice which will actually work for that writer. Pick one and follow what it says and you could end up never finishing a thing; pick another and you may become a best seller. So how do you know which is which? By looking at what you've already read/written/critiqued. Having now looked at several recommended books, after many years of all of the above, I can tell you, quite honestly, that I would have been floundering hopelessly if I had tried to read them first. I wouldn't know what I should be doing or why - and much of what I've read would simply not have worked for me at all. ETA: Pardon if I end up with multiple posts - have a new keyboard with touchpad which is going back to the store ASAP! grrrrr....
You gotta start someplace. All I can say, is it's a good thing we aren't collectively making a decision on whether How-to's should be banned or not. I'll probably keep mine.
So do I, and I've already explained why. From my POV that shows he's perceptive and has investigate them. He didn't say he was against a writer learning their craft. Being great at anything is a matter of how the individual uses the tools and the knowledge of the field. You don't reach the Olympics without coaching. You don't become a doctor without interning under competent teachers to guide you. But success of the kind you need takes both a knowledge of the profession and an aptitude for it. But aptitude, or talent if you prefer is only potential till it's trained. Hmmm... A narrator who "tells the story directly to the reader in an author-centric rather than a character centric way. One definition of the difference between fiction and nonfiction is that one is author centric and the other chracter centric. Lots of overviews and synopsis—a chronicle of events, as against telling the story in the protagonist's POV. Another defining characteristic of nonfiction technique, Reporting and informing instead of entertaining. What I find strange is that you accept twelve years of study in primary school as reasonable and necessary. Since you say you have papers to grade I assume you also accept that professions such as teaching, engineering, medicine, etc require more specialized knowledge than what we get in our school-day English classes. How is it that you believe that, yet at the same time believe our twelve years of primary schooling is all that's needed in the way of preperation for the profession of writing fiction for the printed word? Dickens didn't believe that. He trained the people who worked for him in the techniques he viewed as necessary for a quality product. So you're arguing against someone you would probably hold up as a master to be emulated. Every creative writing course I've looked at has the same structure. Like any college course the student is expected to read a textbook and learn from it. In the case of creative writing, which has precious little lecture time, they use the knowledge they gain from that book to write the poetry, fiction, or journalistic assignment. Every university course on writing fiction has their own own textbooks. Dismissing a book on writing by an honored professor, who taught professional fiction writing for over thirty-years, and who also sold seventy-five novels, a "how to" book is disingenuous, at best. You cannot accept the idea that people will get help in writing from members like yourself here and at the same time embrace the idea that getting advice on the same subject from a successful writer somehow stifles creativity, or is of less importance—or necessary—than asking questions here.
I think there is also a difference between discussions among writers of all levels and reading a one-directional discourse.
An interesting claim, given that you're not saying that they might, in some areas disagree, you're saying that this book contradicts that book. Some examples of how and where a specific book on writing technique contradicts another might be interesting to discuss. A general comment that unidentified books might in some unknown way contradict what another, equally unknown book says, gives nothing meaningful to discuss or make decisions on. That's it? In an entire book the hopeful writer may find some "little" piece of useful information? You figure that someone like Stephen King can talk for 150 pages about writing technique and there's nothing of use in there? Sol Stein, who wrote plays, novels, and films has nothing useful to tell us about what he looked for when he was a publisher, or did when he was writing? A top agent like Donald Maass, or Noah Lukeman, who decides if we're worth publishing can't tell us anything meaningful about what an agent or publisher looks for in a manuscript? I think maybe you've been reading the wrong books.
