# Hey everyone



## Bartleby9 (Mar 20, 2014)

I've recently started to dabble in writing fiction. So far I'm sticking to short stories. My attempts at writing fiction in the past we're pretty stale. I think the big reason was, I hadn't read enough. I think if you want to write you have to read. And I hope I don't offend anyone, but if you want to write well, what you read matters. If you told me there were two writers in the room and one of them read Dean Koontz, Michael Crichton, and Clive Barker and the other read Hemingway, Orwell, and Flannery O'Connor, I would without hesitation be able to tell you who the better writer was.


----------



## Greimour (Mar 20, 2014)

Though I disagree with you on the 'what you read' thing... Welcome to the forums ^_^

Dean Koontz to some 'Readers' is the best writer... that's a readers perspective and that is what matters. Likewise, Hemingway is equally respected by OTHER readers...

To me, from a literary view point, I would say Hemingway is the better study... but then, that would depend. Who is your target audience? I know many Dean Koontz readers that would not touch a Hemingway book... If it wasn't for Predators movie, I know at least one avid dean koontz reader that would not have heard of hemingway... Same with 'The Notebook' I know a couple of avid YA Fiction readers that would never have heard Walt Whitman had that movie not mentioned him.

So... it begs the question, what makes a good writer? 
Literary poetic genius? Having your work studied in a classroom? Having the largest fan base following? Having sold the most best sellers? Having made the most money from writing by readers buying your work?

It is all point of view and speculation. 
There is another more logically sound reason for you to be greatly mistaken based on the information you were given.

Let's say your opinion is that the Hemingway reader is the one you consider the best writer prior to seeing his work... because you haven't given your opinion and I am using guess-logic to predict which you would say...

The reader of Dean Koontz is 56, Studied English Literature, Creative Writing and English Language at all the great and prestigious schools. His studies included Hemingway, but he didn't like any of it. He also studied Shakespeare, naturally and before Dean Koontz his inspiration for writing Novels came after reading a Novel by Stephen King named Carrie in 1974, when he was aged 13. He has all the grandest awards of study in everything regarding the English Language (different ones in different countries so lets say all the American ones) He has written and published more than 30 Novels, 22 of which were best sellers.

The reader of Hemingway is 22, still in college and has published a short story in his college paper. 

Who is the better writer now?


P.S.
I do think there is a small element of truth in what you said. What you read matters < but this is the difference in opinion.
If you are writing YA... Then having read a lot of YA helps and potentially betters your writing.
If you plan on writing for children and you have never read a Dr Zeuss book and your reading knowledge is limited to Stephen King... 
then sure...
You might have a problem on your hands...
I don't think it holds as much water as you do though.. what matters is your story and your knowledge of the language you write in. I wonder who Shakespeare studied to get as good as he got... maybe no one in particular... just the language itself. Maybe the rest was all Skill and Genius.


----------



## Blade (Mar 20, 2014)

:hi:Welcome to the forums. I could almost agree entirely with your OP except I think a measure of diversity in reading is worthwhile even if it is not the most polished and classic material. Sometimes I find a book worthwhile even if the presentation is a little rough but then I read a lot of non-fiction so I suppose it is to be expected.:grumpy:

In any case take the time to tour around the site and see what is going on. It covers a lot of ground really and you re bound to find both what you re looking for and probably other stuff that will catch your interest.

If you have any questions please ask.:-D


----------



## Greimour (Mar 20, 2014)

Blade said:


> :hi:Welcome to the forums. I could almost agree entirely with your OP except I think a measure of diversity in reading is worthwhile even if it is not the most polished and classic material. Sometimes I find a book worthwhile even if the presentation is a little rough but then I read a lot of non-fiction so I suppose it is to be expected.:grumpy:



I must be in a disagreeable mood haha... I dont agree that 'rough presentation' should be expected when reading fiction 

I agree with the rest - except of course I dont think reading Hemingway makes you a better writer... I think learning the language and writing makes you a better writer... Reading to me is a part of learning the language and obviously, reading whilst learning means reading various types of work - which is where you get your diversity. I for one didn't study only Shakespeare in school. 
John Steinbeck wrote 'Of Mice and Men' (fiction) I studied that in school as  one other example and I didn't think there was anything rough about it at all. It was good material to learn from.

On the note of Diversity... my reading interest span almost every genre. I am also a hoarder of specific authors.
For example:
Charles Dickens: I am familiar with many works by charles dickens, but this is in thanks to Television. I don't know anyone who has actually read 'Great Expectations' but I own it and have tried a few times. I hate how it is written... just as I hated reading Shakespeare. The story is sound but the out dated method of writing/spelling etc just grates on my imagination and I can't get into stories by Charles Dickens. 

Roald Dahl... I think I have read every story he has written >.<

Dan Brown: I loved Da Vinci code and now have quite a few of his books and read at the very minimum 3 (can't remember exactly now how many I read, maybe on the 3)

Derek Landy: Read 7 of his Skullduggery Pleasant books and own all the ones I have read.

John Steinbeck - Of Mice and Men (obviously)

Phillip Pullman: His Dark Materials Saga

J.K. Rowling: Harry Potter Series Obviously...

J.R.R. Tolkien: Hobbit, Lord of Rings and most of Silmarillion

Stephen King: Cell, The Dome, Tommy Knockers (hated tommy knockers) IT, Carrie

Markus Zusack: The book Thief

Trudi Canavan: The Black Magician Trilogy; Traitor Queen; A song of Ice and Fire saga

and I can continue naming books and authors spanning Genres from Fiction, Sci-Fi, YA, Adult, Manga, Fact, History, Historical Fiction (partly based on historic facts), Horror, and of course, classical literature... 

I can also say that I began truly loving the written word and writing for pleasure more than 22 years ago. I began my first story with intent for publication (but abandoned that particular project) more than 10 years ago and in those 22 years spent 3 years twice (total of 6 years) not writing.

So, in total, not including learning my ABC's in primary school and only from the time of me being serious about reading and writing (and getting an award for successfully telling a teacher what happens in ANY book she picked up within the schools library after having claimed to have read the entire stock) then I have a total of 16 years writing and 22 years as an avid reader of all genre's.
My exams throughout school were all A's in English, English Literature and English Language... I was studying at the highest level of my age group right to the end of High School and getting the highest marks throughout.

And after all that blowhard nonsense that could be looked at as gloating... I can say this with ease.

None of it makes me a good writer.I know this, because I am not a good writer. I may be decent some of the time, good on occasion and have a momentary spasm of brilliance on extremely rare occasions... but at best, I am merely "an able writer - most of the time." 
...It did however contribute to my being able to spot spelling mistakes and it did increase my speed at reading to a point I genuinely do gloat about how fast I can finish a book whilst retaining all the information that was in it. 


Point is:


Reading helps a writer get better, but actually writing and getting feedback is what makes a writer better.


----------



## Bartleby9 (Mar 20, 2014)

Greimour said:


> Though I disagree with you on the 'what you read' thing... Welcome to the forums ^_^
> 
> Dean Koontz to some 'Readers' is the best writer... that's a readers perspective and that is what matters. Likewise, Hemingway is equally respected by OTHER readers...
> 
> ...



You make some good points. The gist of your argument is that you can't really argue with taste. And that's true. But then there are no standards when it comes to what is good. Shakespeare and Harry Potter are in the same level because more people read Harry Potter in 2014. Can't we objectively say that Hemingway is more important than Stephen King? 

Dean Koontz has written 75 books. 75 books? Should anyone who has written 75 books be taken seriously?


----------



## Greimour (Mar 20, 2014)

Bartleby9 said:


> You make some good points. The gist of your argument is that you can't really argue with taste. And that's true. But then there are no standards when it comes to what is good. Shakespeare and Harry Potter are in the same level because more people read Harry Potter in 2014. Can't we objectively say that Hemingway is more important than Stephen King?
> 
> Dean Koontz has written 75 books. 75 books? Should anyone who has written 75 books be taken seriously?



Haha, I did say Hemingway in my opinion is the better study... but that wasn't my issue. Nor was the taste of the read. It was that what you read doesn't make you a better writer... I am not going to miraculously write better just for reading Hemingway. Writing makes a writer... reading just helps learn various methods of wielding the tools (words) we have.

There is one case I can think of where reading messed up my writing. I was greatly annoyed with my portrayal of a story, then, after reading a story by Joe Abercrombie, I completely revamped my style. I was enjoying the re-write a lot. Then I got hooked on Skullduggery Pleasant Series by Derek Landy. I was off YA Fiction at the time but I ended up reading them all with great interest. (I have waves of genre moods) 
Anyway, I had been so into Derek Landy for 3 books in a row, without breaks and without writing. When I returned to writing his style was so perfectly lodged in my mind that the voice of my story changed. It was wittier, funnier, more sarcastic and more like a mystery novel... it was all wrong. I ended up scrapping 3 days worth of writing (which was when I did a recap of what I'd done to that point and noticed the voice change)

That's the only time reading messed up my writing, but I did get a witty and slightly amusing short story out of my little 3 days of writing (me scrapping something means pasting it into a different document and putting it into a separate save file) 

Oh.. my digression went off topic:

Wielding the tools we have.

At the end of the day, I write with the English language. I write using English grammar to the best of my abilities (I forget the rules a lot, my brain is like a sponge.. it learns fast, but it dries just as quickly)
Any other writer using English only has the same words I do, they follow the same rules I do... 

But you would have me believe that because they read Hemingway and I read Roald Dahl, his writing is immediately better than mine?
Just because he read Hemingway doesn't mean he understands the rules of SPaG any better than I do, and just because he read Hemingway, doesn't mean he knew what the hell Hemingway was talking about or how talented Hemingway was... just because he claims to like it and has read some of his work enough to memories it off by heart... doesn't in my opinion; mean he learned more than how to read efficiently.


----------



## thepancreas11 (Mar 20, 2014)

Well, to your point about reading what matters, there is an interesting discussion already happening here on this website that you might be able to take part in:
http://www.writingforums.com/threads/145898-Is-there-value-in-reading-out-of-your-comfort-zone

Welcome, Bartleby. You've a very interesting name. On that note, I'm guessing you've got experience with Bartleby the Scrivener? You might enjoy stories by lasm. She seems pretty well-read. I also recommend Chris Miller. They both post a lot in the Prose Writer's Workshop. I encourage you to read as many critiques as you can in your first few days, Bartleby. As you know, the more you read, the better off you are when it comes to writing. What can be said of fiction goes the same for critiquing.

I've always personally loved reading a mixture of things. It's as important to know what you don't like as it is to know what you do.


----------



## Bartleby9 (Mar 20, 2014)

thepancreas11 said:


> Well, to your point about reading what matters, there is an interesting discussion already happening here on this website that you might be able to take part in:
> http://www.writingforums.com/threads/145898-Is-there-value-in-reading-out-of-your-comfort-zone
> 
> Welcome, Bartleby. You've a very interesting name. On that note, I'm guessing you've got experience with Bartleby the Scrivener? You might enjoy stories by lasm. She seems pretty well-read. I also recommend Chris Miller. They both post a lot in the Prose Writer's Workshop. I encourage you to read as many critiques as you can in your first few days, Bartleby. As you know, the more you read, the better off you are when it comes to writing. What can be said of fiction goes the same for critiquing.
> ...



Thanks for the tips. Yeah, I'm a fan of Melville's "Bartleby". I'm a fan of Melville in general. 

I like your critiques in the Fiction section. You give good constructive criticism and aren't afraid to point out the weakness in a story.


----------



## Plasticweld (Mar 20, 2014)

I make a point of not trying to sound like a literary snob. I do however like the fact that you made a statement that shares a little about yourself.

 A good writer is read. If you are able to convince the general public to spend their hard earned cash on the words that float around in your head; your a good writer. People love the story, when you put more emphases on how it is told verse what is told, your either splitting hairs or are another writer who has a hard time reading without critiquing. Most writers are guilty of this. 


I don reed or right so good but tell a pretty mean story and would defy you to be able to walk away from an illerate such as eye in a social setting.  Welcome to the forum


----------



## Greimour (Mar 20, 2014)

thepancreas11 said:


> Well, to your point about reading what matters,



Hey Pan... No I do not in the slightest bit disagree that reading matters. It does, certainly... you can't fully understand and appreciate a language without reading it. Speaking and hearing/understanding only goes so far. As you walk before you run, you read before you write...

So Yes, Reading matters... thats not the issue I had. ^_^

What I am saying is: You can't call person (A) a better writer than (B) purely based on what they read.

I have a dyslexic brother who (after years of trouble) now finds reading enjoyable. He can even read out loud with less difficulty than me... yet when it comes to writing, he still can't spell very well, his grammar is atrocious and his story telling ability is non-existent. He is as well read as I am and then more... his diversity of reading far exceeds mine, and I am no slouch in the readers corner, my stack of read material is no small feat....

So no, I will never agree that you can name the better writer purely based on what they have read.


----------



## Pandora (Mar 20, 2014)

Bartelby9, I look forward to reading some of your short stories, Welcome to WF, nothing like a good read.


----------



## Bartleby9 (Mar 20, 2014)

Plasticweld said:


> I make a point of not trying to sound like a literary snob. I do however like the fact that you made a statement that shares a little about yourself.
> 
> *A good writer is read. If you are able to convince the general public to spend their hard earned cash on the words that float around in your head; your a good writer.* People love the story, when you put more emphases on how it is told verse what is told, your either splitting hairs or are another writer who has a hard time reading without critiquing. Most writers are guilty of this.
> 
> ...



Well, I couldn't disagree more with this statement. If you apply that statement to music for instance are we to say Britney Spears is great music because she sold millions of albums? The Spice Girls are up there with the Beatles? Of course not.

Most people like bad writing.Most genre fiction is just bad. Yet, it sells. Why is this? It probably has something to do with mass media (marketing, TV, cinema etc). 

If you look at the best seller lists from the first half the 20th century its mostly literary works. What Americans chose to read had a dramatic change in the 1980's. In 1970 Hemingway's "Islands in the Stream" was the 3rd most popular novel of the year. A decade later and the top ten list is full of spy thrillers. The Cold war had been around since the end of World War II. So,what happened? 

Television and the cinema probably. People wanted to read the same things they were watching at the movie theater. Their brains changed. The narratives they were enjoying with movies made them more likely to enjoy the same narratives in print.  Or it could be that we still have all those literary readers but that mass media/television/film etc created a new kind of reader with (for a lack of a better word) a cinema brain.

I'm not saying that people who enjoy genre fictions aren't good readers or that all genre fiction writers are bad writers. I'm just saying that just because something sells it doesn't mean its good.


----------



## Plasticweld (Mar 20, 2014)

The purpose of writing is to inform, entertain, share an experience, pass on some hard earn lessons sometimes through different means. What determines success is if this is accomplished, you and I will just have to disagree on  what we consider successful. 

The fact that you feel it is up to you to determine what is worthy is the very definition of  snob. I can agree with some of your logic concerning trends but seriously doubt if anything but handful of works will stand the test of time. If I had to guess the works that are determined to be the best, "The Classics" are read only by a handful of people. 

You said "That just because something sells does mean its good." you should try and telling . that to any of the number of writers on this forum who are trying to sell their work and be recognized.  The size of the royalty check has a lot to do with how well you feel about the quality of work you just sold.


There is a vast amount of skill levels here, many who are very wide read, very astute. I am sure you will find a niche here. I enjoy the difference of opinion we share and look forward to reading some of you work..Bob


----------



## A_Jones (Mar 20, 2014)

Wow, everyone wrote novels just to say hello.  Well I wont read them all as I don't have time but I would like to bid you welcome!  I hope you stick around and I hope to see your work.


----------



## Bartleby9 (Mar 20, 2014)

Plasticweld said:


> The purpose of writing is to inform, entertain, share an experience, pass on some hard earn lessons sometimes through different means. *What determines success is if this is accomplished, you and I will just have to disagree on  what we consider successful. *
> 
> The fact that you feel it is up to you to determine what is worthy is the very definition of  snob. I can agree with some of your logic concerning trends but seriously doubt if anything but handful of works will stand the test of time. If I had to guess the works that are determined to be the best, "The Classics" are read only by a handful of people.
> 
> ...



I didn't think the argument was about success. Dean Koontz is very successful. Brittany Spears is very successful. But, both are low culture. 

I didn't say it was up to me to decide what was worthy. Heavens no. I probably have questionable taste as well. 

I would never let the size of the check determine how I feel about something I've written.


----------



## Greimour (Mar 20, 2014)

Bartleby9 said:


> I didn't think the argument was about success. Dean Koontz is very successful. Brittany Spears is very successful. But, both are low culture.
> 
> I didn't say it was up to me to decide what was worthy. Heavens no. I probably have questionable taste as well.
> 
> I would never let the size of the check determine how I feel about something I've written.



The last line of your comment is something I can agree with. I don't measure my work on how much I earn from it... I measure it based on how many people gain enjoyment from it. I don't care if your opinion is that Hemingway is Histories best writer of all time without question. His ability to use simple words, simple prose and simple sentences to draw out vivid pictures, invoke strong emotion and leave an everlasting impression was astounding.

But to then say that someone who reads Hemingway is a better writer than someone who reads Dean Kootz... it's laughable.

Just because he read Hemingway doesn't mean he understands the first thing about why Hemingway is good. The man who reads D.K. might just genuinely like the work, maybe he likes to read a genre he doesn't write in, or maybe he is a real life friend of DK and reads it out of obligation. But that same writer who reads DK might have every bit of genius and talent as Hemingway, Whitman, Shakespeare, Jane Austen, George Orwell and John Steinbeck combined... but because he doesn't read Hemingway and he does read Dean Kootz, he is a second rate writer?

Does my logic not make sense to you?

I will put it one other way, just to throw it out there. There is a writer who I went to a Creative Writing class with... it was a test run. He loves Orwell, read everything Orwell has written. At the time I had read Animal Farm, once, in High School.... I use this example, because he was listed next to Hemingway. 
That friend of mine wrote like this:

We Had Been Having Tea When It HappeneD. A Strong Gust of Wind Able To Knock Over The Drinks on Our Table. You Might Think it Not Such A Rare Thing. But It Was The Consekwences of That Event Which That MatterS.

Ya see, he was an able reader, but his spelling was poor and he didn't understand what commas were for... he didn't finish high school, he was kicked out for bad behaviour. It was only when he was in prison that he picked up a book and became engrossed in George Orwell books. He had remembered our school class reading Animal Farm and picked it up out of boredom. When he got out of prison, he tried to set himself straight and set his goal on becoming a writer... Charles Bronson had written a book whilst in prison, so surely he could learn what he needed to know whilst out of prison and publish a book too?
I wished him the best of luck. I am not in touch with him anymore, last I knew he was back in jail... but he was also still writing. 

Are you still unswayed that a reader of Hemingway, Orwell or Flannery O'Connor is immediately a better writer than someone who does not read any of them?


----------



## Bartleby9 (Mar 20, 2014)

Greimour said:


> The last line of your comment is something I can agree with. I don't measure my work on how much I earn from it... I measure it based on how many people gain enjoyment from it. I don't care if your opinion is that Hemingway is Histories best writer of all time without question. His ability to use simple words, simple prose and simple sentences to draw out vivid pictures, invoke strong emotion and leave an everlasting impression was astounding.
> 
> *But to then say that someone who reads Hemingway is a better writer than someone who reads Dean Kootz... it's laughable.
> 
> ...



Yes it makes sense. I didn't mean Hemingway readers are better writers than Dean Koontz readers. I meant, if you told me in the room there were two published writers and one was influenced by Dean Koontz, Clive Barker and the other was influenced by Hemingway and Flannery O'Connor, determining who was the better writer would be possible. That's just my opinion.


----------



## Gumby (Mar 23, 2014)

Hi Bartleby, welcome to WF.


----------

