I've always been a little confused by the saying or piece of advice to read like a writer. I've been reading and writing a long time and the way I read has never changed. I'm really not sure what it even means when people say to read like a writer. How is this different than just reading? Do you make notes in the margins and underline things? Do you go back and read certain passages? I might do those things sometimes, but when I'm reading I'm pretty much just reading. I do think reading is extremely important for a writer. The best examples and teachers for how to do anything related to writing are in books, I believe. And I know my writing is where it's at in a large part because of reading. But, again, I don't really know what it means to read like a writer. Should I be doing something differently?
I totally agree with you on the importance of reading. For me, "reading like a writer" can be a Good Thing or a Bad Thing. The Good Thing comes when you come across a well-phrased sentence and analyze it for what makes it an effective sentence, so that you can use that in your own writing. In the same way, a student who plays quarterback on his high school football team watches a pro football game differently than we do, because he's carefully studying how the quarterback salvages "broken" plays when his protection breaks down or chooses which receiver to throw to as the play progresses. Or consider an amateur cellist listening to Yo Yo Ma, and admiring how a particular part of the piece is phrased, with the vibrato used just so, and the timing subtly altered to emphasize the emotional content. She'll file that away, and attempt to use that technique the next time she performs the piece. The Bad Thing comes up for me when I'm reading a lot of fan fiction, and shudder at the mistakes in grammar and spelling, and how unrealistic the dialog is, and so on. I'd love to be able to turn off the "editor" function and enjoy the piece for what it is, but I can't. And it's not only amateur writing. My wife tells me that Barbara Hambly seems to have been self-publishing recently, forsaking the services of a competent editor, and it really shows in her writing.
This...sometimes I will read and re-read a page or paragraph just to absorb how an author wrote something the same way an art connoisseur admires brush strokes and color transitions in a painting.
There is of course a great appreciation of language when I read, but more than that I read to learn, to expand my knowledge base, to make me a better-informed writer. I read a lot of non-fiction - psychology, philosophy, science - to expand both my world-view and my understanding of human nature and human experience.
I'd interpret it to mean you read with an analytical mind that notices things non-writing readers wouldn't... or at least not be able to articulate. Things like how the POV is distanced and how effective that distancing is relative to the story being told. Or whether the character arc shapes the events vs the events shaping the character arc. Like Billy changes as a person and this causes him to make XYZ happen. Or XYZ happens and this changes Billy as person. It can be the same story in a reciprocal sense, but how each element plays out can take it in a completely different direction. I think musicians listening to music might be an easier example to illustrate. Best example of that I can think of is Sweet Child o Mine. It's a happy love song, right? Lots of open, strummy, happy chords (D, C, G). Lots of positive lyrics about blue eyes, smiles, sunshine, and all that good shit. And one of the most famous opening guitar riffs ever, which is also bright and happy despite being an E minor riff, though Slash drops that little F# (14th fret on the high E, for our guitar playing friends) which makes things even happier. It shouldn't, because that F# is the boring II of E, but in G (the relative major of E minor), the F# is the VII note, which is very important in major/minor definition and can change the entire complexion of the song by repeating it like Slash does. Buuut... once the last verse ends the song becomes decidedly not happy. Slash's solo is all minor and very plaintive using those pentatonic runs that have been around since Mozart was in short pants. He mixes in a little harmonic minor (D# over the E) too, which you'd never find in the happy, strummy chords in the beginning, despite everything being in the same key. And the outro part, the where do we go now, is very, very not happy. It's not a song about love at all. It's a requiem for losing love. Frustration, angst, and pounding your face into the wall. It's so bad that all Axl can say is "where do we go now?" because there are literally no other words in the English language to describe the pain of the love gone bad. It's not a happy song. It's not a happy song at all. Do you see it coming with all of Axl's happy things he has to say about his girl. Not on the surface, but if you're analyzing the music and know how songs work--the equivalent of a writer reading a story with a writer's eyes for artistic structure--you would notice that the song tricks you into thinking it's in G major (very happy) instead of E minor (very sad). And G major and E minor are actually the same key with the same notes (G A B C D E F# G) and same chord progressions (G, Am, Bm, C, D, Em, Fdim, G). But depending on which chords you play--more importantly, which chords you don't play--you can make it sound the happy way or the sad way. And what Sweet Child does is set the listener up with Slash's opening riff (E minor) before transitioning into those major chords (D, C, G) which builds tension. And not because it's a tense passage of music, but because it fails to release tension. You don't know it's building, just like a overstretched balloon floats around without a care in the world, but one little hole and BOOM! You might not know an E chord from an E cigarette, but when you hear Slash and the boys hit you in the face with the minor progression hiding behind the happiness, you realize just how much tension was building all along. Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, but I couldn't think of a literary equivalent. And music is really straight mathematical equations with defined integers and intervals; not the dynamic, undefinable smorgasbord that storytelling is. The point is that you can listen to a song (or read a book), enjoy it, articulate what you liked about, but if you're not versed in music theory (or writing theory), you don't know the "technical" reason why the song/story is so effective. And if you understand that, you can take what you learn from a song or story and apply it to your own shit. I know from Sweet Child that if I can keep my fingers away from certain notes in the beginning they'll be much emotive in the end. Writing is the same way. Learn what works about books you like and why and you'll become a better writer without trying.
OK, a mere like just isn't going to do it here. Thank you for taking the time to write such a fantastic post! Now I'm off to listen to Sweet Child again with fresh ears, and maybe study more than just the opening lick this time.
My pleasure. I haven't been off my work laptop since Thanksgiving so anything I do on it that isn't work is a welcome reprieve. With that opening riff, you're listening for the second to last note in the lick: doo doo doo doo doo doo DOO doo That capitalized "DO" is the F#. Take a listen... it sounds juuuuust a little out of character. Like an MC trying not to reveal their true nature.
I think you mean to be unable to 'just read' without halting to analyse or take notes. When I was younger I used to do 'the reader's read', that is to read whatever the writer was putting on the page without thinking too deeply about style or why something worked (I halted of course for the 'oh wow' moments, but I halted for a few seconds only, reflexion on such 'wows' was left for later). Then, as I grew older and 'became a writer' (in other words, when I began to write almost everyday), I found a tendency on me to do 'the writer's read'. I stop reading when something strikes me as worthwhile, new or interesting. I stop when I agree or disagree with where the plot is going. When the characters do something I wasn't expecting (this is quite rare). I stop to make a random remarks about psychology or good or evil. I stop to write notes on ideas and other books related to what I'm reading. And thus... I often do 'read like a writer', which means to read a book takes twice the effort, and you can hardly call this 'reading' as non writers do it. I can't help this tendency to 'read like a writer', but I can catch myself often, then switch off the 'writer' for at least a first reading. I do this quite consciously each time, with most of fiction I read. Don't think I'll get rid of this habit ever. I find it useful to take notes while reading non fiction though . You can go back to these notes later, find out what were your thoughts back then, or even how little you knew about the subject, part of a diary. You can also add information, then when you give the book away, you give a 'special edition'. We've got 'The annotated XZY' for sale as well, so we as readers could do the same, why not. If the notes are good or bad? Let the next reader decide. I own profusely annotated books (by anonymous readers), they tend to add a book's value, in my experience, even though sellers and buyers find them 'unaesthetic' and sell or buy those for lower prices. Probably why I don't read fan fiction. I just can't carry on reading. Sure not all fan fiction is like that, but such carelessness keeps people like me away.
I'm late to this particular party, so sorry if this has been said above. To me, reading like a writer means taking to time to consider every word and phrase, as the writer struggled over them, rather than skimming the wordy parts. Because all those words meant something, and, unless they are pure drivel or throat-clearing or passive constructions, they warrant some attention.
