@EdFromNY that was rather insightful what you have just posted, i can see where you are coming from with that, im just concerned that where there are some of us who have improved our structure through other means (aka another language) that its been entirely left to one side... but thats just me being nit-picky, i could say as a general rule of thumb i go somewhere between 3 and 4 because thats how i work best.
Do you mean that study of one language helped you improve your fiction writing technique in another? At first blush, that seems counterintuitive to me, so I'd be really interested to know how that worked.
@EdFromNY @mammamaia you both are wondering, but think about it. if you are to learn a language thoroughly and properly, you need to look at grammar, sentence structure and all of the things that go alongside it, and because of that, you have to look at your own language, which then gives you an insight into how your own language works as alongside the one who you are learning. thus, as well as learning another language, you are getting more of an understanding of your own.
And this is where your argument fails because you're making the basic assumption that the reader can see them without knowing what to look for. Take a simple example, The Last Supper. What percentage of the people viewing it will consciously notice that the aiming point of the rafters shown in perspective is Christ's head, and as a result are like a ring of arrows proclaiming, "This is important." I've tried asking people what's unusual about the rafters, and have gotten comments on perspective, but not one of them noticed the true purpose of them being included in the painting. Yet there they are, in view every time you look at the painting. But they're only background, and obviously not important to the purpose of the drawing, so while we react to them, and they make the painting more powerful, we don't see them. No matter how sincerely and carefully you analyze someone else's writing you are seeing the finished product, and will not see the process that resulted in one line being included in place of stating it another way. I the course of writing and editing the piece the author made hundreds of decisions as to why things were included, and how it was done. None of that is available to the reader. If we could learn technique from reading, over 95% or the submissions to my critiquing services would not have been written as either a chronicle of events or a transcription of the storyteller speaking. Yet on the converse, if you understand what POV is, as against thinking it refers to which personal pronouns are used, you can learn a great deal about how a given author presents and manages it by reading, because then you're doing so with an educated eye. You make it sound as if the vast majority of successful writers agree with you—that you're quoting experts and I, and a few university professors are alone in such views. You forget two important things. First, that while you favor it, you're in disagreement with the people who make their living by training students who go on to become published writers. Their success rate, of course, isn't 100% or even close to it. But it is magnitudes greater than the success of those who believe they're learning the techniques of writing by reading novels. And of course, small as my accomplishments may be, they came only after I abandoned the "Read, read, read, then write and you'll be successful." method. I can live with that.
Since the entire thrust of my post was that whatever method works best is largely dependent on the learning style of the aspiring writer, this is a misinterpretation on your part, as was your claim that I advocated trying to write fiction without any study or preparation. Having been over this ground with you repeatedly, I can only conclude the misrepresentations are deliberate. Your reliance on them does not strengthen your argument. And who therefore have a vested interest in seeing their views prevail. You have no statistical basis to make this claim. In fact, it would be impossible to do so, since one would need a large enough sample size to assure results that could be generalized to an entire population while at the same time controlling the study sufficiently to assure that the methods of study were uniform and that the levels of ability were also within a reasonable range of uniformity so as to eliminate the possibility of variations in success or failure being based on factors other than the works studied or instruction given. And how could one control for the greatest variable of all - the fertility of the individual imagination? And that's what this is really all about, isn't it? A method didn't work for you, so it can't possibly work for anyone else. @ChaosReigns - I can see that, but I don't see the link to how seeing those differences provides insight into how to craft fiction in either language. I hope you'll post more on this.
Maybe we could do an experiment with two people who don't read very much. Have one of them only read fiction for a month, and have the other one only read how-to books for a month. Then see which one writes better.
The one who only looks at the end result will have no idea what process to use to get there, and the one who only studies the process won't know what the end result is supposed to look like.
I don't buy that. I've never read a how-to book (I don't count King's book as a how-to book), but I know what process to use to get to the final product. I'm sure other people who read a lot of fiction feel the same way.
i was talking from more of a structure and grammar point of view, than a fiction writing point of view, im sorry i didnt make that clear
This, a million times yes. My husband has Asperger's and ADD, and his learning style is completely different than mine in just about everything. Even if you don't have a learning disability, all our minds work differently and to say that you must do this one thing this one way is rather short-sighted, in my opinion. To say you can't learn by reading is like saying you can't learn to draw a face by looking at someone else's face. As another example, I learned how to use an image-editing software entirely on my own. Tutorials were just confusing as heck in the beginning. It took me time, but in the long run I learned the entire program just by trial and error - and looking at the paintshop art of other people, considering what they made thoughtfully and then working out how to make the same effect. That's just how I learn.
Perfectly all right. But the focus of this discussion is on the methods one might follow to educate oneself in the craft of writing fiction, beyond the basics of grammar.
@EdFromNY I loved what you said, especially about learning to read. My daughter learned to read at a very young age; for a long time, I attributed this to her intelligence, and, our superior method of instruction. She is smart, no doubt, but I realized after, that she would have learned to read no matter what we tried; and here's the key part, as long as we tried something, anything, and stuck with it. Somewhere along the line, they get it, and it's home free from there on -- one of life's true joys. I'm guessing, the same holds true of the various facets of fiction writing. Somewhere along the line we learn to do things, and those things quickly become second nature, leaving us wondering why others don't get it. Like a great chess player, who sees ten moves or more ahead, you analyze in depth, where others like me, are lost. Point out just a little of that structure to me and it's like a light comes on, voila, I am enlightened. Knowledge builds on knowledge; unfortunately so do mistakes and bad habits. I'll strive to get a balance between 2. and 3.
I don't disagree with you assertions. I'm no grammar wizard, but grammar is a tacit pre-requisite to writing well. I question whether the improvement in grammar skill in your native language wouldn't happen a lot faster and with greater understanding if you'd just spent your time on topic, that is the grammar of your native tongue, not some other language's grammar that you then compare to. This is convoluted thinking.
i can see where you are coming from with making this fair comment, but if you had read some of the other posts, you will have found that this is how people find their way of learning, and that is mine, i can understand it doesn't work for you, but it did for me, this is only a mere suggestion. (besides, ive spoken 2 languages coming on for 7 years, i think i know how i roll with these things) i'm going to say no more on the subject as i feel like im going in circles explaining myself to everyone... all im going to say is this: this is what worked for me, don't take this as solid law, and don't take this as the only way to do it, its a suggestion and i know that some dont want to spend hours yawing over books in their native language.
I know this is slightly off topic, but I could NOT do grammar before I learned a foreign language. I could write just fine and my 'grammar' was good in the sense I didn't make very many mistakes, but I had no idea of the concepts behind it. I didn't know why some things felt 'right' and other things 'wrong'. It took learning Latin to make me learn how to diagram a sentence and nail down all the tenses and moods (subjunctive mood was very eye-opening!).
No one us saying dont read fiction. So to do this right, one just reads fiction and the other reads fiction and how to books.
There's plenty of data out there, it's gathering and compiling it in a meaningful manner that is tricky. Then comes the, what is or isn't success argument.
"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." One problem with this thread is that the assumption is being made that there is a one-size-fits-all formula to being good at anything. No matter what we try to master, there are a hundred ways to do it. A thousand different paths that people have used over time to get there. If we are talking about seeking 'training' via reading (how-to and otherwise), writing, mentoring, taking courses, studying, then yes---it is fair to assume that every 'professional' person has tried to find a way to improve themselves. The problem here, I think, is in claiming that there is one path for everyone, or that a specific book will do for me what it has definitively done for you. It is the 'absolutes' that are hard to swallow, because there aren't any in the end. There are patterns, maybe, but no absolutes. Some people loathe any form of how-to situation, while others can gain nothing from informal mentorship. For some it is enough to read quality literature and apply those techniques to their own writing---(especially before the 'courses' and 'how-tos' were invented) and be able to derive enough from those sources to train themselves. Everyone is different, and there is no blanket approach for all. I remember hearing about a conference scheduled years ago in Europe (I believe it was Europe) on the Definition of Genius. Many international experts were in attendance---(PhDs in education, psychology, experts on the nature of intelligence. etc), and after a whole week's discussion and argument, ALL the panel could agree on was that when it came to genius------you 'knew it when you saw it'. There are some things in the world (and I think creativity is one of them), that are either 'there', or 'not there'. You can take courses, you can read how-tos (if you like), and go through all the motions of becoming a 'professional'. But in the end---at the VERY end, what defines talent or genius is not what has been done to develop it, but the intangibility that does not conform to ANY method or formula. If instruction could develop that quality then we could all simply read books and take courses, and the mission would be accomplished. I am not trying to derail anyone's opinion. There is value to all these arguments. It is just that----in putting your faith toward a prescribed means to an end, you are going to get into trouble.
May I chime in and take a shot at answering the original question? If someone has said what I'm about to say, I apologize, I'm a bit tired and may have skimmed a post or two. The original question was Instruction vs. General Reading. The answer is neither. Please. Hear me out. The only way I can think to explain this is to tell a story... During my 35 years as a minister I wrote approximately 120 sermons. I was told unequivocally, by everyone, including the church leadership, that mine were the best anyone had ever heard. (I'm not bragging, please let me explain what was really happening!) I tried to show several other ministers my approach for speech writing, but none of them got it. Not one. My approach took advantage of both techniques from the original question. I received formal instruction AND I listened to thousands of sermons. But so did every other minister. What was different? Am I some kind of prodigy? NO. Very early on I learned the real trick to effective learning (how is another story for another time). The secret to effectively learning anything is being passionate about understanding HOW things work and WHY they work. If you read a how-to book and don't analyze every aspect of it, don't figure out WHY the author is giving the advice they are giving, don't determine HOW the elements work together, all you will end up with is the ability to parrot the techniques of others, without true skill. If you explore examples of the form (i.e. read fiction to learn what works and what doesn't) but fail to consciously ask at every step HOW did the author do this and WHY does this technique work, all you will end up with is the ability to parrot the style of others, without true skill. This is why, to me, the original question is moot. Neither method, on its own, works. Your level of engagement, intellectually and emotionally, determines the efficacy of the learning, more than the method. Edited to add: @EdFromNY 's method works for him because that method engages him, emotionally and intellectually. @JayG 's method works for him because that method engages him, emotionally and intellectually.
@TDFuhringer - I can well understand you not wanting to slog through 5 pages. But you should know that back around the end of page 3, I said that it ultimately comes down to one's individual learning style. So, yes, I agree with you.
You just had to resurrect this terrible forum war that leaks and bleeds into every thread >.> I have nothing to add that I haven't said a million times in other threads but I agree with everyone here. You have all good ideas and knowledge of how to learn and improve. Just take a bit of everything you all said and get the best results possible.
