^I agree too. I hate reading [fiction], almost all the time. Actually I hate watching movies, watching TV shows, seeing plays, etc. etc., but we'll just say I hate reading for argument's sake. I just do. Lots of stories just bore me to death, even the ones people say are interesting. My friends sort of find it a funny game to find something that gets anything of a reaction from me. Yet I really enjoy writing. I guess maybe because I found other stories so boring I decided to make my own. Who knows. That being said, you should still read, of course, particularly stories with similar plots, themes, or character types and so forth. It'll certainly help you think about your own plots, themes, character types, and so forth. Still, you don't need to read 100 books a month or anything like that. Anyone who says you have to read a whole crapload is, in my opinion, very misguided - you can probably help your writing a lot more by having a life and garnering those life experiences that will enrich your stories.
Is my post or your post the one that's irrelevant? (Just cause it's kinda ambiguous and I don't wanna misunderstand something else. xD)
I don't think I said anything about "reading everything" vs. "writing anything". However, writing, like speaking, is ultimately an exercise in communication. In the case of fiction writing, there is no built-in necessity of the reader to read a given story (as opposed to non-fiction writing, such as news reporting, where the need to know will impel the reader to avail himself or herself of a given piece of writing). It is therefore necessary for a writer to be able to easily make a connection with a reader. And I don't see that happening if the writer is incapable of making such a connection from the reader's end. And the writer who attempts to do so, in my opinion, is little different from the speaker who never listens.
It took me a while to read things on computer but I have been getting into some of the story on the forum. It like reading from a book, I can't get into this zombie book, called Warm Bodies. But I say just take it step by step, if you can't get into it then you can't but there is some good ones on the forum
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. So what you're saying is that if I live a difficult life, if I have a lifetime of heartbreaking experiences, I am capable of using a vocabulary in a meaningful way, and I have an understanding of how to make my readers feel what I have felt my writings will be useless because my life experience will be useless compared to the knowledge someone else may have gotten from books? I'm really hoping that's not what you're saying, but unless you're now backtracking I don't know what else it could be?
You are misunderstanding, but more accurately, you are assuming what someone can do in circumstances that I am questioning would be possible. To wit: "capable of using vocabulary in a meaningful way...hav(ing) and understanding of how to make my readers feel what I have felt..." How does one acquire such knowledge if not through reading? How does one learn to use the language in a compelling way, if not by seeing how others have done? Are you saying that it is possible to attend a couple of "how-to" workshops on writing, and be immediately able to make words sing the way, say, Shakespeare made them sing? Or to create characters as tragic as, say, Arthur Miller or Tennessee Williams created? Or to create characters as memorable as those created by Charles Dickens? Or to create stories as chilling as Stephen King's? As gripping as Tom Clancy's? As resonant of history as James Michener or Leon Uris? As compelling as Ernest Hemingway's? As for having lived a difficult life, I must say (as one who has lived a difficult life myself) that I see nothing in that which qualifies one to be a writer. Yes, it may well be a handy source for story lines, but that does not mean you instantly have the ability to write them. Writing is a craft that must be learned. Tell me a better way to learn it than reading, please.
Well I certainly find your stance interesting, I'll give you that. I am proposing that it is possible to be an effective writer without even attending a how-to workshop. I am proposing that it is NOT always necessary to be taught how to write. I am proposing that just like some people just CAN send chills up your spine with voices of angels in song, there are some who just CAN understand language and use it to make a story come alive without reading four hundred books a year or attending work shops. As for the difficult life, I am proposing that if one possesses the talent of which I speak, the ups and downs of tragedy after heartwrenching tragedy may allow such a talented person the ability to find the words to express that misery and have the reader feel it as their own.
You're not alone, I have these moments all the time. I'm even having issues with it at the moment. Sometimes, I won't be in the mood to read anything, books, threads, articles, you name it. Then there are the days I will read tons of them. As for a cure, I have no idea what may work for you; but I usually let it pass on it's own or purposely stop myself from writing so much, then I'd feel the want to read instead. Though, stopping myself from writing usually kills me inside. You'll pass it soon.
Actually, on the subject of workshops, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. In any field of human endeavor, there is always a rare example of someone who possesses a natural ability to perform at a high level. But even they cannot achieve great things without a genuine love of the thing for which they possess the talent. The would-be writer who shuns reading is exhibiting a disdain for the craft. And one who disdains his own craft will not long succeed at it. I suggest at this point that we agree to disagree.
There are people out there who can read a book a day for their whole lives and never learn a goddam thing. And there are others who can read only a very few books and learn a great deal. It has to do with what you bring to the reading. I think a writer should read some good books, just to know what good writing is. But that doesn't mean he has to force himself to read and read and read constantly. Natural talent can make up for a lot of not reading. But even a composer as gifted as Mozart could never have written great music if he had never heard great music. Mozart was trained in music from early childhood. He wasn't a genius who appeared spontaneously out of nowhere. Ernest Hemingway never studied writing formally at a university, but he was trained as a reporter, and sat at the feet of such luminaries as Ezra Pound and Gertrude Stein and Sherwood Anderson and Ford Madox Ford when he was in his early twenties in Paris. And he read a great deal. It's hard to find an example of a great writer who didn't read.
That's not what I heard him saying at all. I hear him saying that mastery of written language from one side (writing) is unlikely without some experience from the other side (reading). How do you get that vocabulary, and that understanding of how to make your readers feel, without having _been_ a reader? ChickenFreak
And I thought I answered that? Listen, I AM a reader. You hardly EVER see me without a book in my hand. What I am trying to say is that it's not necessary to be an avid reader who reads everything. Some writers just can't stand to read anything that isn't their genre, and rarely read that. I don't think that automatically makes them an ineffective writer. EdFromNY- I'll be happy to agree to disagree with you, but what do you mean you gave me the benefit of the doubt?
In your prior post you had said: In my previous response to you, when I had mentioned a writer moving forward only on the strength of a how-to workshop, I was giving you the "benefit of the doubt" that you would agree that a fledgling writer would be well advised to at least seek some professional guidance on embarking on such an endeavor. Alas, I was incorrect in my assumption.
I'm sure fledgling writers can be helped by writing workshops. I'm sure they can be helped by many things. I'm saying that it's not necessary for SOME writers to do any of the above. I'm saying that some people have a natural talent that couldn't be learned with a life devoted to workshops and university learning, and that some people devote their lives to workshops and learning still to have the talent equivalent to filling a thimble. I'm saying that loving something is not synonymous with being good at it, and being brilliant at it is not synonymous with loving everything about it. Alas, we just don't seem to understand each other.
Well, at the very least, you don't seem to (want to?) understand me. I never said that loving something is synonymous with being good at it. I did say it was a necessary ingredient to be good at it. But if you know of a great writer who hated reading (which is what the OP - remember the OP? - said he did) I'd love to hear about it. I also did not say that being brilliant at something is synonymous with loving everything about it. And that's a silly statement, anyway, because I don't know anyone who LOVES everything about any field of endeavor.
I didn't see the topic writer saying that he Hates Reading. He even specified that he do like some books. What I got out of it was he prefers writing to reading, which I can totally understand, I am somewhat the same, that is why I found what Trish said to mirror me too: That said, it sure doesn't mean I never read, it's just that I read only when I find a book that really interest me and that can hold my interest long enough to finish it, and is within my genre. It might be a quite narrow genre but I love reading it. I also try reading other genres for studying purpose, as if it was a school assignment, to pick up things and learn stuff from the 'good' writers, but that kind of reading has nothing to do with the books I choose to read for pure entertainment And I will probably never appreiate them the same way.
I find myself avoiding reading because of my eyes. I need to get good glasses. If I read on the computer its fine, but I am not good at reading on a desktop computer. Can't get comfortable. Ex got the laptop, it overheated all the time anyway. Old people always told me, "don't get old." I still believe it beats the alternative.
As someone already pointed out the OP, yes I remember , did not say they hate reading. I don't think that loving reading is a necessary ingredient to be a good writer. Not to the extent that you seem to be implying, and I don't think that it's necessary to go to college or writing workshops for *some* writers to be excellent in their field. I understand you perfectly, I just still don't agree with you.
Yes, "hate" was overstating it a bit - my fault for not checking his wording before I posted. But I did say that I thought we should simply agree to disagree. So, let's just leave it at that.
How many of you speed read? Do you find that you can enjoy the book the same as reading at a slower pace? Thoughts on speed reading?
I find that I enjoy a book much more if I read it slowly: I pay more attention to style and the way the writer is trying to express the scene/characters, the techniques (s)he has used and I often stop to think over certain quotes (often writing down those that make me think or laugh along with a page reference).
When I was in high school I used to speed-read. I thought I'd learn more and better if I read really, really fast. I practiced a lot. Now, I hate the concept. I read slowly and indulgently. I love to read aloud. I think that started when I found that a) when I speed-read, I don't remember what I read very well; and b) I discovered poetry. Poetry pretty much has to be read slowly, and I think the best of it should be read aloud. Reading poetry aloud made me realize that many good prose writers should be read aloud as well. When I read slowly, I enjoy it much more, and it stays with me. So I learn more from it.