# Reading as Writers



## Sam (Apr 8, 2014)

There seems to be a prevalent belief among certain people that writers do not need to read a great deal to become better writers. Whilst I have many times advocated a position of there being no rules in writing, when it comes to style and the manner in which the story is presented, I feel strongly that every writer should read as much as they possibly can. I would venture a guess that every knowledgeable person on the subject would agree with this hypothesis, but yet there are those who insist that reading "every once in a while" can just be as beneficial. 

There also seems to be a belief that you can't read widely and still find time to write significantly, or that one is more important than the other, both of which are, in my opinion, asinine assertions. 

What say you?


----------



## Deb47 (Apr 8, 2014)

To each their own, really. I mean, it makes sense that reading a lot would improve your writing, but the important thing is to find what works for you. We're not the same. Whatever works for most might not work for you.


----------



## Kepharel (Apr 8, 2014)

I haven't read a book in well over a year; lost the habit I guess.  Apart from my Welsh Night Out effort on here (written while a member) I doubt I have written more than a thousand or so words in the last 3 years.  What I have put up other than Welsh Night has been dusted off and made to fit for the purpose of gaining advice from you guys because I do like the idea of writing. Now I'm playing Elder Scrolls there's not much chance I'll write anything much again this year     But I do like being on the Forum...honest......


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 8, 2014)

I certainly agree that reading helps my writing, I just have a hard time doing high volumes of both at the same time. I will write for a while and then read for a while, or write during the week as work permits and read on weekends, or vice versa.


----------



## popsprocket (Apr 8, 2014)

Reading certainly helps make better writers. I would say that it becomes less important the better you get. That doesn't mean that you should read less as your writing becomes more accomplished, it just means that there is less to learn from simply reading.

Otherwise my specific advice would be to read lots, but more importantly read everything, even (especially) outside the genre(s) in which you write. It's important to grasp the literary world as a whole and certain genres can teach a writer things that others can't.


----------



## stevesh (Apr 8, 2014)

I can't imagine there being a successful published author who also hasn't been a voracious lifelong reader. I don't know how one would learn what good writing sounds like otherwise.


----------



## Pluralized (Apr 8, 2014)

I've always read a lot, but not regularly. It's hard to imagine not loading up the word-spigot from time to time, but I wrote stories as a little kid long before I had digested many books. Many prolific authors read a lot of novels, and many prolific writers don't. Not sure what the metrics are, whether reading a lot makes you a better plot-constructor or not, but I can see the value in observing how the masters do it.


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 8, 2014)

Sam! Where's that consensus you promised me? What this this thread has proven is - different things work for different people. Either viewpoint is entirely valid, so long as it allows for the existence of the other. 

Personally, I can't read extensively, because I don't have the time or the attention span, and because it confuses the writing part of my brain so that I end up copying the style of whatever I just read. I want to write like Stormageddon, not some dead old master of words.

I also find that if you don't read very much, you have more time to consider what it is in a book that did or didn't work for you before you charge on to the next one, meaning that you might take more from each individual book than you would reading to the extent you suggest.

I would go through your original post pointing out all the things that prove how little attention you paid to what we were saying on the thread that sparked this (perhaps actually read the parts you called "asinine assertions"), but I'm simply going to ask you to be more open-minded in the future, and perhaps phrase things a little less offensively. You can't hide insults in fancy language on a writing forum (I'm amused, not annoyed, and hopefully haven't annoyed you).


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Apr 8, 2014)

There are so many millions of voices out there, different registers and styles and perspectives. Whole different worlds. Reading them expands your own range of possible writing, the depth and variety of what you can think, the characters you can create, the voices you can produce.

It's possible to write without reading, but chances are the result will be limited, shallow, and bad.


----------



## Gyarachu (Apr 8, 2014)

While I can't imagine anyone becoming a great writer without having read a vast array of books, I think it _is_ possible to write well without consistently reading--you just aren't going to be as good as you could be. However, that is totally just personal opinion and I could very well be wrong.


----------



## Kevin (Apr 8, 2014)

So... hypothetical writer "A" writes his first and only masterpiece at 27. Then he dies. The literary world laments that he could've been this or that, if only he'd been around longer to write more books. Considering that he started reading  at say, 4 or 5, didn't actually start reading at an advanced level until he was in his teens, he only had about 10 or twelve years to 'really' read. How did he do it? 


Hypothetical writer 'B' has been reading at an advanced level for over thirty years. Does he really need to continue? The words are thoroughly in his head, it's just a matter of getting them down on paper. His time is limited. Whatever free time he has, writing takes up most of it. He's already read stacks of books.  Being older than 30 he may drop at any moment. If he wants to get out that 'great novel', should he be spending his limited time reading, or actually writing?


----------



## Sam (Apr 8, 2014)

I never said that writers should stop writing. You make time for both, but saying that one is less important than another is opening yourself up to failure.


----------



## stevesh (Apr 8, 2014)

In the case of 'A', there's no accounting for talent. I believe that writers and other creative people are both 'born' and 'made'.

As for 'B', I suspect that after thirty years, reading would have become such an ingrained habit that he couldn't stop if he wanted to. I know I couldn't.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 8, 2014)

I think that any writer must be, or must have been, a voracious reader in order to have any chance of being a good writer. And I think it definitely helps if one has read a wide variety of books and genres. It's like being an artist and wandering through the Louvre - or the local art fair. Not only do you learn what you like, what you don't like, what works, what doesn't - but it opens the creative part of the mind. I don't think I've ever read a book, good, bad, or indifferent, that I haven't found myself thinking "Well, what if...?". Now, once one has been writing for some time, I don't think reading is _as _necessary - but necessary it still is. Not reading is isolating oneself from new ideas and ways of doing things - never a good idea for a writer! As to finding time - well, I was a single parent. You can _always _find the time.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 8, 2014)

I don't read, and I'm told I write well.  I think part of it is an understanding of writing theory (like alternating sentence length), and part of it is an inherent understanding of how a story should unfold from seeing movies and TV shows.  Am I right about this? I guess we'll find out once my beta readers get back to me.


----------



## Apple Ice (Apr 8, 2014)

Great literature is written by a bunch of dead white guys and is deemed great by nearly dead white guys. I've tried reading some and it's been of no benefit to me and neither has any other sort of literature. I tend to write whichever book I've just read and so I don't find it very beneficial. A boxer can watch all the greats he wants but he will never be great just by watching, he needs to box. Reading can help to a certain extent but after that, it's all down to you and your writing. 

And as always, don't forget after reading someones comment to think:

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/tg/image/1337/21/1337219773722.jpg


----------



## Potty (Apr 8, 2014)

Well... I hardly read at all. Not because I hate it but just because reading for me is actually a bit of a struggle. Once I'm into a book I will keep going till it's finished... but even a short novel (90k words or so) will take me a good 4 days of non stop reading. That's assuming I'm not working round the clock as I currently am or trying to make something of my dream to be published or generally trying to be an active part in my little family. So as far as reading goes, it's something I reserve as a treat when I just want one week off doing nothing at all. A camping holiday or the like. So I maybe read 1 or 2 books a year.

However, now I might be deluded here but I might not, I think I'm a pretty decent writer... Granted I'm no Tolkien but I certainly think I have what it takes to write a semi successful novel.

Make of that what you will.


----------



## kilroy214 (Apr 8, 2014)

I used to read a ton, even while writing, but I've always been what I consider a slow reader, in that I could probably read anywhere from 300-600 pages in a week. When I started writing seriously, well over 6 hours burning the midnight oil a night, my intake of books slowed. Since my Little Monster was born, I rarely had time to do either things, and I missed both dearly. Now that I've begun getting some free time and started really doing both again, it takes me a while to finish a story or a book, but I don't think my writing has suffered from the abstinence of either.

Sure, it took some work getting back into the ole' groove of things, but once there it was like I'd never left.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 8, 2014)

This is going to come out all wrong, but here goes... The only people I see claiming that reading isn't important to their writing are people who haven't published anything other than the odd short story. I've never heard of a working author say anything other than that reading is fundamental to writing well. I bet that those who claim that a lack of time is a factor in their lack of reading were avid readers before time became an issue. I'm not talking about reading 'classics', I'm just talking about reading. It's common for new writers to be influenced by what they read, for their style to reflect their most recent reading. That's okay. I can think of far worse things than to have my style influenced by Twain, Poe, Dickens, or King. My voice will win that battle in the end, because it is my voice. My speaking voice has been influenced by my parents, my friends, and my geography, but it is still unique. So is my writing voice. Reading teaches us the structure of both story and grammar. It teaches us flow and pace. It builds vocabulary. But, maybe most importantly, it fertilizes our imagination and plants the seeds of ideas.

Reading regularly won't make you a writer--only writing does that. It will, however, make you a _better_ writer.


----------



## bookmasta (Apr 8, 2014)

Like with my word count, I have a minimum of reading that I do later in the day, which is forty pages. Though I end up to do more than that most nights. Anyway, I agree that to become a better writer you have to read.


----------



## Kepharel (Apr 8, 2014)

One off classic, how about Margaret Mitchell's ( an avid reader apparently) Gone With The Wind or Harper Lee's To Kill A Mocking Bird, or even Anna Sewell's Black Beauty, all great reads. Bunch of dead guys? Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, though probably written out of sheer bitchiness and revenge, has to reach out right across time to the present day and across the whole age spectrum; It is a breathtaking piece of work. Not sure how much he read but in the 1300's I doubt it was much.


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 8, 2014)

Reading and writing to me are not mutually exclusive. They're totally interdependent. How can I illicit emotions through my own writing if I don't experience that myself through the writing of others? I am constantly on the search for writing that devastates me, makes me laugh, keeps me up at night or simply makes me go "wow, how did they come up with that"? I'm in awe of great writing. Reading is an experience I would never deprive myself of as a writer because it feeds me creatively and the only mechanism I have to produce something myself that has the same effect on others. If I didn't have the reference of writing I admire, and a desire to continually experience it, I'd have no ambition to write anything at all.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Apr 8, 2014)

I believe reading is important. I just don't do it enough. I plan to eventually get into it. I have been inspired before by it. I though want to get this expensive book on criticism. My approach is different since I dislike most everything I read because maybe its hard for me to read in the first place since I lose track of what is happening often. I want to study some authors to get an idea on how I can approach the subject. My approach is different but the statement still is true.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 8, 2014)

Terry D said:


> This is going to come out all wrong, but here goes... The only people I see claiming that reading isn't important to their writing are people who haven't published anything other than the odd short story.



Guess I'll have to go ahead and get my novel published, then.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 8, 2014)

Kepharel said:


> Dante Alighieri's Divine Comedy, though probably written out of sheer bitchiness and revenge, has to reach out right across time to the present day and across the whole age spectrum; It is a breathtaking piece of work. Not sure how much he read but in the 1300's I doubt it was much.



Dante studied poetry going back as far as Virgil, so it's safe to say he read a lot.

Mitchell was a journalist (lest we forget that journalism is a legitimate form of writing).

Sewell died within months of Black Beauty being published, so follow-up works would be difficult.

Lee was an avid reader as a child.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 8, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Guess I'll have to go ahead and get my novel published, then.



:eagerness:


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Apr 8, 2014)

Reading is my fuel for writing. Without reading, I'd be kaput. You'd may as well give a pencil to an illiterate man and tell him to create.


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 8, 2014)

Sam said:


> There seems to be a prevalent belief among certain people that writers do not need to read a great deal to become better writers. Whilst I have many times advocated a position of there being no rules in writing, when it comes to style and the manner in which the story is presented, I feel strongly that every writer should read as much as they possibly can. I would venture a guess that every knowledgeable person on the subject would agree with this hypothesis, but yet there are those who insist that reading "every once in a while" can just be as beneficial.
> 
> There also seems to be a belief that you can't read widely and still find time to write significantly, or that one is more important than the other, both of which are, in my opinion, asinine assertions.
> 
> What say you?



I agree with you, completely. And, as far as not having the time to read and write, I find that difficult to believe. The stacks of books in my bathroom and on my bedside table attests to that... 

When I read, recreationally or not, there's always a glimmer of a Writer's Critique hovering in the back of my mind. The most treasured moments are when I come across a particularly well-written bit and say to myself "I see what you did, there." I love it when that happens. That, in my opinion, is exactly the sort of thing that a Writer needs to do when reading the work of others. Sometimes, the Writer's "Third Eye" can find just one word that makes a substantial difference which reveals the intent of the man behind the curtain.

I will say that there are quite a few writers who do not read recreationally while they are writing their own stories. I can understand that, to a certain degree. There can be themes and ideas that one could come across that can overwhelm the imagination, in a certain sense. It's as if the Writer's Brain tends to attempt to explore new concepts or new combinations that are introduced while one reads recreationally. This may, in the opinion of such writers, "taint the purity" of their own work. I can understand it, but I also must insist that this does not have to be the case. It's possible for one to both read recreationally (or otherwise) and write original fiction.


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 8, 2014)

Now I'm hearing the inevitable "unpublished authors have inferior brains" =_= whether you are or aren't published is entirely irrelevant to this, as even the bestsellers will have, at some point in their lives, been unpublished. Every unpublished person on here could be sitting on a masterpiece right now, so be careful before you snub us 

Seriously though, I know I'm doing right by myself. I don't like people implying that I (and others) can't figure something like that out for ourselves. Yes, reading is important. Not one person here has refuted that. But some people learn best by reading slowly and sparingly and mulling over the piece they just read, and others learn best whizzing through everything they can find. Both are fine!

We can't see inside each others brains, in fact, most of us here are strangers to one another. So for any of us to suggest that there is a right way and a wrong way that will work for all of us is total insanity. That's not to say I think everyone here is doing that, and that's not to say I'm not enjoying hearing of other people's opinions, only that I don't like seeing them expressed as something I'm supposed to take as factual. Reminds me too much of school.

I'm me and you're you. And thank God for that.


----------



## squidtender (Apr 8, 2014)

I was a serious poker player for many years. One of the biggest sayings was "you won't be good until you seen a thousand hands played". The same could be said for writing. "you won't be good until you've read a thousand books."

Now, I realize that not everyone has to read  to be good . . . for some, it comes natural. But, for any new writer, the best advice is always:

READ, READ READ and WRITE, WRITE, WRITE!


----------



## Bishop (Apr 8, 2014)

I've made my thoughts on this adamantly clear in another thread, but I want to jump in and offer it up again!

You must read. Not to read while claiming to be a writer is like learning to play the guitar without ever listening to music. You cannot understand how much it improves your work to digest and understand the work that others have done before you. I am not going to say someone is a bad writer if they don't read... they could just be a much, much better writer if they did. I believe only prodigies, or people who have uncanny, once-in-a-generation luck and talent can truly be great without reading. Even then, I wonder how much better that person would be if they read.


----------



## Kepharel (Apr 9, 2014)

Single fictional work writers misses the point... it's not just their only work, it's their first work. No-one is suggesting on here that such a work came straight after an acquaintance with'John and Jane' stories, and sometimes I like to put my thoughts out without resorting to Google. Fine to pull me up if I'm factually wrong of course. Higher education requires a lot of reading, even in the Arts, but do you have to love reading outside of the curriculum to become a proficient writer.  I guess you could say that it is an essential requirement, but however much you read can it prepare you for the flash of genius that is Black Beauty or Gone with the Wind.  You can read to Kingdom Come but if being a successful writer is not in you then it won't on its own help.  There again, maybe that 'Great American' Pulitzer Prize winning novel is in all of us but like that nugget of gold hidden in a stream it's only pure chance we will ever come across it.


----------



## Ariel (Apr 9, 2014)

As far as I can understand the real problem is the sheer volume of reading suggested as the "correct" amount of reading to do.  My answer to that is this: people read at very different speeds.  I'm a quick and relentless reader.  I typically go through a novel in a day or so--in my spare time.  I have friends who can't read an entire book in a month and it has always been that way.  

I won't say reading isn't important for writing but I will say it is not the amount read in a given week.  

I will posit that other media (movies, video games, etc) which weren't available to other generations can teach something about writing as well.


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 9, 2014)

amsawtell said:


> I will posit that other media (movies, video games, etc) which wasn't available to other generations can teach something about writing as well.



Good point. I find movies particularly inspiring for writing because excellent movies have plots that are well executed, great dialogue, deep characters, etc. All very important aspects to story/novel writing.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 9, 2014)

spartan928 said:


> Good point. I find movies particularly inspiring for writing because excellent movies have plots that are well executed, great dialogue, deep characters, etc. All very important aspects to story/novel writing.



While movies and games and TV can all be great sources of inspiration (and possibly character study) they fail to give the writer the most important aspect of writing that reading does: An understanding of the language. If you're a writer, it is not your job to tell a story, or come up with an idea. It is your job to put that story or idea into language. I love movies (usually bad ones) but I learned infinitely more about writing properly from reading books than I ever did from watching movies.


----------



## Jeko (Apr 9, 2014)

There isn't a single writer who doesn't read - it's impossible to avoid the written word. But consciously avoiding reading because you prefer to write is like preferring exhalation to inhalation. It's the language you use; whether you write it or read it, you should be breathing it, and understanding the importance of both what you read and what you write.

For me, it's less about 'teaching' myself through reading and more a matter of continually absorbing the English language. In the same way that I eat, sleep and breathe, I read. It's just something I do.


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 9, 2014)

I find video games in particular very inspirational, and can rarely play for more than half an hour without having to stop to write. Books rarely inspire me anymore, but I agree that they're necessary for understanding the language aspect of writing (in other words, writing ). Trouble is, nobody seems to write in a style I find engaging. I like pretentious, flowery prose, whereas the norm seems to be the precise opposite. Tolkien probably comes closest to what I'm after.

My main problem with writing is plot (I think, I won't deny that I could be entirely delusional about my skill as a wordsmith), and while reading more might help, I can't read just for plot, because if the writing is good but not my cup of tea, it gets in the way and I soon find myself wondering what on earth the plot is.

I've forgotten what I'm trying to say again...ah yes: I read more for the actual words on the page than anything else. Second comes the subtext, third the characters, and finally the plot, unless it's either an incredible or a terrible one. But the main focus in the majority of books seems to be the plot, with language seen as a means to an end, and something that should be as unobtrusive as possible. Therefore I struggle to enjoy the majority of books, as they don't meet my desires as a reader.


----------



## Coffin Worm (Apr 9, 2014)

Personally, I feel the only way to become skilled at writing is to write. That being said, becoming a great a writer without reading sounds like a heavyweight champion who's never boxed anyone. :---)

The 'being published' sentiment seems like a philosophical dilemma: Can a person consider themselves a performer if they've never had an audience? :indecisiveness: I suspect those who have been published will say 'no'. I also suspect they're right. Hmmm :cookie:


----------



## Ariel (Apr 9, 2014)

I think it really depends on what you write as to what media helps the best.  If you write plays but never watch or read plays how good are you, really?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 9, 2014)

An interesting thought: Are the groundbreaking authors the ones who were original by way of being ignorant of the norms, or the ones knowledgeable enough to deconstruct them?


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 9, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> An interesting thought: Are the groundbreaking authors the ones who were original by way of being ignorant of the norms, or the ones knowledgeable enough to deconstruct them?



Maybe they're all just planned accidents of genius?


----------



## Ariel (Apr 9, 2014)

I _am_ an avid reader and I consume a lot of other media as well but to say that there is a set mark for how much a writer _must_ read (and basing that mark on one person's experiences) is blatently erroneous and ignorant.  As I've said before every person reads at a different rate, has differing tastes, and differing free time.  

Reading a book in a day or two is fine for me because I can read that quickly and in the spare time I have. Reading that much for another person may be impossible because of any number of other factors.

Very few of us here will ever make a living at writing if we're even so lucky as to be published.  Reading and writing is therefore a hobby for most of us and to say that it makes the majority of us in any way _inferior_ is alienating and, truthfully, hurtful.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 9, 2014)

amsawtell said:


> I _am_ an avid reader and I consume a lot of other media as well but to say that there is a set mark for how much a writer _must_ read (and basing that mark on one person's experiences) is blatently erroneous and ignorant.  As I've said before every person reads at a different rate, has differing tastes, and differing free time.
> 
> Reading a book in a day or two is fine for me because I can read that quickly and in the spare time I have. Reading that much for another person may be impossible because of any number of other factors.
> 
> Very few of us here will ever make a living at writing if we're even so lucky as to be published.  Reading and writing is therefore a hobby for most of us and to say that it makes the majority of us in any way _inferior_ is alienating and, truthfully, hurtful.



I may be missing it, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that a writer must read any set number of books, or at any particular rate. If I'm wrong on that please point me to the post. The point *has *been made that many writers are voracious readers and consume books at a high rate, but the only point being made from the read-to-write camp (as I understand what's been written here) is that the vast majority of 'successful' writers consider reading fundamental to the process ('successful' in this context meaning being highly regarded enough to have their views made public). I myself am a slow reader, taking weeks to read most novels, so I certainly don't think there is any quota, or pace, which predetermines success. 

What I can't fathom, however, is why anyone would choose to work in a field in which they they have no interest in the result. Do cooks not like to eat? Do musicians not enjoy music?


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 9, 2014)

Terry D said:


> ...What I can't fathom, however, is why anyone would choose to work in a field in which they they have no interest in the result. Do cooks not like to eat? Do musicians not enjoy music?



^---- This.

In order to be a good Writer, one has to have passion for their art. If one has passion for the art, one has to have been exposed to it and, most specifically, one purposefully exposes oneself to it in order to indulge one's passions.

I couldn't possibly understand how anyone could say that they are passionate about their writing, but are not passionate about writing....


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Apr 9, 2014)

Morkonan said:


> In order to be a good Writer, one has to have passion for their art.



Not always.  It's very possible to be naturally talented at something and simply have no passion for it.  Fans of MMA may recall the case of BJ Penn, who has stated many times that he did as well as he did for as long as he did because he was naturally gifted and could get away with it.  Once other fighters finally improved, he just wasn't motivated enough to keep up.

Similarly, I knew a kid in my high school who was a phenomenal soccer goalie.  But he didn't care enough about it, and he ultimately passed on a soccer scholarship because it wasn't what he wanted to spend his college years doing.

Yes, in the majority of cases, the best are the best because of their hard work and dedication.  Still, there are exceptions, and for those exceptions, people only persist BECAUSE of their natural talent.  They don't have the passion for the art, but they're good enough that they figure they might as well do something about it.


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 9, 2014)

Terry D, if you look at the original post, and pay close attention to the phrasing of it, you will understand the problem amsawtell makes mention of 

"I feel strongly that every writer should read as much as they possibly can." this bits fine. But then...

"I would venture a guess that every knowledgeable person on the subject would agree with this hypothesis," in plain English, this means "everyone who knows what they're talking about will agree with me". There's a lot of that kind of rhetoric worked in there, and a (very) few people have perpetuated it in their responses.

As for being passionate about writing, I saw part of an interview with Ian M Banks and he saw it as a job, more a chore than anything. His real passion was for composing, and yet it's writing that he's famous for.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 9, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Not always.  It's very possible to be naturally talented at something and simply have no passion for it.  Fans of MMA may recall the case of BJ Penn, who has stated many times that he did as well as he did for as long as he did because he was naturally gifted and could get away with it.  Once other fighters finally improved, he just wasn't motivated enough to keep up.
> 
> Similarly, I knew a kid in my high school who was a phenomenal soccer goalie.  But he didn't care enough about it, and he ultimately passed on a soccer scholarship because it wasn't what he wanted to spend his college years doing.
> 
> Yes, in the majority of cases, the best are the best because of their hard work and dedication.  Still, there are exceptions, and for those exceptions, people only persist BECAUSE of their natural talent.  They don't have the passion for the art, but they're good enough that they figure they might as well do something about it.



Both MMA and soccer are not art. They are physical sports. I bet that a lot of people who are biologically/genetically predisposed to strength and stamina can excel at many sports with little passion or effort. But these are not intellectual skills.

Intellectual skills like music, art, writing... these things require digestion in order to understand. The rules of soccer are clearly outlined. There are no rules for art. There's no way to "score" in art, there's no way to use the strength you gained from lifting weights to write harder.

People with natural, passionless, and undigested talent are called "prodigies." They just sit down and their brain is somehow predisposed to do this perfectly. They're rare. In music and art. Even more so in writing, because style has a different approach within the confines of language. These people come along once in a generation.


----------



## escorial (Apr 9, 2014)

It's like anythinkg..to do something you have to be given the basics and let the rest take shape.


----------



## Rivahads (Apr 9, 2014)

Simplify, word knowledge is like the artists paint. More colors you have to use the more vivid the feel. Words are mind paint.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 9, 2014)

I would almost always rather read than write, so reading's prone to slipping into procrastination for me. I feel like reading for technique might easily be overdone, and practicing the writing is the more required, after an initial exposure. Reading definitely helps keep vocabulary (and spelling!) accessibly in my decaying mind. Nobody has mentioned, but reading to learn worldly -- non-writing-technique -- information, which broadens content of what's written, is very important, essential in many cases.


----------



## spartan928 (Apr 9, 2014)

ppsage said:


> Nobody has mentioned, but reading to learn worldly -- non-writing-technique -- information, which broadens content of what's written, is very important, essential in many cases.



Learning stuff, good point.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 10, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> "I feel strongly that every writer should read as much as they possibly can." this bits fine. But then...
> 
> "I would venture a guess that every knowledgeable person on the subject would agree with this hypothesis," in plain English, this means "everyone who knows what they're talking about will agree with me".



I think, perhaps, interpretations are being made based on something other than the words. "Venture a guess" and "hypothesis" kinda popped out at me, so my interpretation wasn't quite the same as yours.  Now, I don't know what sparked this whole discussion to begin with (what the original thread was) but perhaps we could leave the personalities outside and discuss more objectively?

That said, I don't think there should be any "quota" for reading - I read quite quickly, but in spare moments so it may take me a day to read a novel or 3 weeks. It all depends on what else is going on. But I _do _find time. But that also fits in with the hypothesis - people should read as much as they _possibly _can.


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 10, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> perhaps we could leave the personalities outside and discuss more objectively?



Indeed, I'm being immature and I apologize. To you too, Sam  I'm very bad at backing down.

I still don't think reading is as crucial to writing as has been suggested. You learn a lot from it, but once you have a certain amount of base knowledge, there's only so helpful it can be. But again, that very much depends on the individual. I find at this point that reading a lot makes my writing worse, significantly so, and as such I tend to read only when I know it will be beneficial, or when I find an incredible book/series, which happens perhaps once a year (often less).

I think the only thing people SHOULD do is what they know/feel is best for them. If it isn't, it will quickly become apparent and they can change.


----------



## InstituteMan (Apr 10, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> Indeed, I'm being immature and I apologize. To you too, Sam  I'm very bad at backing down.
> 
> I still don't think reading is as crucial to writing as has been suggested. You learn a lot from it, but once you have a certain amount of base knowledge, there's only so helpful it can be. But again, that very much depends on the individual.* I find at this point that reading a lot makes my writing worse, significantly so, and as such I tend to read only when I know it will be beneficial, or when I find an incredible book/series, which happens perhaps once a year (often less).*
> 
> I think the only thing people SHOULD do is what they know/feel is best for them. If it isn't, it will quickly become apparent and they can change.



Hey, storm, not to poke you with a stick or anything, but I think I bolded the bit where you are agreeing in substance with the importance of reading without agreeing with the phrasing others have used. You read, as you yourself admit, but not necessarily when you are writing and not with the actual intent of improving your writing. I bet that your past reading is helping your current writing, and I bet that any current reading you do will help your future writing. My guess from reading some of your work here is that when you were younger you read quite a lot; since you list yourself as "Far over the Misty Mountains [etc]" I am pretty sure that I am correct.


----------



## Ari (Apr 10, 2014)

I am tentatively returning to this debate... as it now holds so many people... to say (again) that I never believed reading was not important (as I told you, Sam, so many times...) I was objecting to this ultimatum: 
"Two books a month is fine for a casual reader, but as a writer you need to aim for at least a book a week. Reading is the most important thing you can do. [..] Read more."
(That's a quote but I've somehow lost the coding buttons.) 

And I protested, because in term time there is no way I can read one book a week, and aiming for something I cannot achieve will only make me sad. 
I am (and I promise I'm not whining about this, but just pointing it out) actually dyslexic. So I read slower than many people and cannot read at all when I'm tired.  
And I do not think failing this "one book a week" prescription will make me a rubbish writer. 

I never said that reading in not important for writers. In fact... I think I'd say that reading is inevitable. Anyone who writes is a person who loves stories. Therefore, they will read.
But I never did say anything to deserve this:
Please go ahead and start a topic on it. See how many writers will tell you it's okay not to read if you want to be a good writer.

Somehow, objecting to being commanded to aim for at least one book a week was turned into "it's okay not to read."
Pause.
I think I just dislike generalizations.


----------



## stormageddon (Apr 10, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Hey, storm, not to poke you with a stick or anything, but I think I bolded the bit where you are agreeing in substance with the importance of reading without agreeing with the phrasing others have used. You read, as you yourself admit, but not necessarily when you are writing and not with the actual intent of improving your writing. I bet that your past reading is helping your current writing, and I bet that any current reading you do will help your future writing. My guess from reading some of your work here is that when you were younger you read quite a lot; since you list yourself as "Far over the Misty Mountains [etc]" I am pretty sure that I am correct.



Feel free to poke me with a stick, I imagine I've earnt it. I get quite obsessive with things sometimes and don't know when to shut up (potentially undiagnosed autism, according to many a teacher and healthcare professional, but potentially just me being a bit of a dick).

I _think _I understand what you're saying, if I do I'd like to say that I at no point claimed reading WASN'T beneficial (or if I did it was simply a different point poorly phrased). I read a lot as a child, in fact I rarely did anything else, but as a teenager, I have read a lot less. I started attempting to write novels (that's when I count myself as officially beginning writing) when I was 11/12 and from then to age 14 or so built the foundation of what I can do now (in other words, everything I wrote until then was utter crap).

At 14, I found the problem of reading worsening my writing, so tended to do one or the other, but now I rarely read beyond what I have to for school, because I can't go more than a few days without needing to write. I can look at the dates of when I wrote everything I did last year and in the beginning of this year, work out whether or not I was reading as well as writing in that time frame, and see that for whatever reason, my grammar goes down the toilet along with my style for a good fortnight after reading. This sounds really strange when I write it out...but I have about 175 000 words to judge this by, so I know I'm not imagining it.

Anyway, I do agree reading is important, but was largely attempting to say what Ari said (very calmly and concisely, I might add, with another apology). However, very few people reading this thread saw the other thread in which the imperative to read more was given, and so did not see the subtext (whether imagined or not) in the question, therefore I imagine I have made quite a fool of myself (something I do all the time, so it doesn't bother me in the slightest, and please continue to call me out on it in the future).

Once again, my apologies for all the stupidity I may or may not have expelled into this thread. My very simple point was that reading all the time does not work for me, may not work for others, and should not be considered an imperative. I think this is the first time I have said so >.>


----------



## Morkonan (Apr 10, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Not always. ... MMA ... soccer ..



I do understand. But, I was referring just to Writing. Muscle memory, reflexes and natural physical ability are a bit different. I accept your examples, but there's something about being a "good Writer" that I believe would appear to insist more purposeful intellectual pursuit than those practices. I'm in no way saying there isn't any of that within the sports world. I'm just saying that it may take more in order to be regarded as a "good Writer."

(I'm also one of those people that, while I don't discount a light interpretation of "natural ability" when it comes to writing, I do believe that _writing well_ can be taught and it is not an innate ability. So, I may be on an opposite side of the fence with some.  S'okay, though. It's the results that are important and that's all that any will ever really judge.)


----------



## Kevin (Apr 10, 2014)

Hmm... I'm afraid that being American and somewhat related to people of 'Plain' decent, we'll have to shun you for a period of time. ....Ok... time's up. There. We can talk to you again. Hi storma, welcome back to the forums...


----------



## Poet of Gore (May 4, 2014)

Sam said:


> There seems to be a prevalent belief among certain people that writers do not need to read a great deal to become better writers. Whilst I have many times advocated a position of there being no rules in writing, when it comes to style and the manner in which the story is presented, I feel strongly that every writer should read as much as they possibly can. I would venture a guess that every knowledgeable person on the subject would agree with this hypothesis, but yet there are those who insist that reading "every once in a while" can just be as beneficial.
> 
> There also seems to be a belief that you can't read widely and still find time to write significantly, or that one is more important than the other, both of which are, in my opinion, asinine assertions.
> 
> What say you?



to me. what i read affects my writing. i really try to read a little bret easton ellis and listen to some my life with the thrill kill kult just before i write

i did read that new Heidi Julavits book before writing for a month and my writing suffered.

now I only read BEE right before i write.

but besides that i listen to hours of audiobooks a day on the friggin train


----------



## ToriJ (May 4, 2014)

I never really thought about it much, but it would explain some issues I have with my own writing. I don't read nearly as much as I should because I'm a lazy butt. The last book I finished was Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. Or was it the third Series of Unfortunate Events book? I can't remember which one I read first. Either way, it's been a good number of years since I finished something. I still read. I read the first couple of chapters of Riding the Storm, Emily of New Moon and Game of Thrones, only one chapter of Lord of the Rings, and I regret having read five pages of Twilight. My reading has the same obstacle as my writing does: Being unable to finish what I start. It's a scary reflection when I think about it.

I couldn't tell you how much improvement my writing received through reading, though. Probably more than I realize if reading role-plays count at all.


----------



## J.C.O Goss (May 10, 2014)

Me, I lead a rather hectic and busy life, so I rarely have time to read, but that's something I regret pretty constantly. If I was a rich man, I would do nothing but read and sleep for about 3 years or until my wife threatened me with divorce for neglecting her.


----------



## Caragula (May 11, 2014)

I find reading essential.  Different authorial styles and voices, authors that push boundaries, all send me back to my own prose with food for thought, new ways I can approach the writing of scenes or the descriptions of characters.
On top of this I do far too much research than is healthy or possibly even necessary.  Like Goss, I don't have much time, but I force it.  I'll do about 2000 books in my life and that means there is nowhere near enough time to read the good ones   @ppsage, it's a shame in a way you see it as procrastination, to me it feels like a pleasure and a benefit rolled into one.

I use my lunch hour for research, my commute for reading fiction and my evening for research or writing, all of which has to fit in with a family, running and quality time.  I guess now I'm in my mid forties I need to get my skates on and put in the hard yards to get good enough to be published.  Reading is key to his.


----------



## blazeofglory (May 11, 2014)

Reading is a great reservoir and I cannot keep away with it. I write heavily but reading seconds writing since reading is a fountainhead of inspirations, a mine of knowledge and both go together but at times reading must lead writing


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Jul 6, 2014)

I believe that it is important to read at least a little bit if you want to become a writer. However, I believe that at its most basic format, writing is a form of entertainment. As long as you have an understanding of what entertains, you can go a pretty long way with writing. Like I said with reading, though, I think it's important, but not that important. Read enough that you know how to spell and you know the fundamentals of storytelling, and then the rest will come as you practice your craft. One analogy I came up with is; people who say extensive reading is what makes you a good writer are like people who say gorging on enough gourmet meals will magically make you a 5 star chef. You can only go so far experiencing the end product, before you need to just try your hand at the creative process.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 6, 2014)

I see you revived an old thread.  I only want to chime in in case some poor young bloke reads the rubbish in here. 

Anyone who claims that reading isn't important won't make a nickel from writing.  Kids, if you want to have a modicum of success,  read well and read often.


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Jul 6, 2014)

Dang... I didn't realize it was 2 mo old. I just saw it was still on the first page of the thread list. 

OT: For the most part I agree with you. Like I said, reading is important and any aspiring writer should do it, but I think whether they should do it often, is subjective. However, I don't have any published works and most of my writing is rubbish, even though most of it was written when I was 5-10, so what do I know? I understand why some may not take what I say to mind, one, because it's a forum - don't take stuff anyone says on a forum too seriously - and two, I'm not a published author. I know what I say would have much more merit if I had a published book or two. However, I would say to just find your own path in writing. I may not have the best idea of what to do since I'm not published, but believe me, I know some published authors out there who think that they know everything about writing... IMO, they're even worse. When you share advice and have nothing to show, you're inexperienced. When you share your firm-planted beliefs that everyone aspiring to do what you do should know, and make talk of what you have to show from it, you're arrogant.


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jul 7, 2014)

I'm snotty and arrogant and snide about this particular subject because this particular subject rubs me wrong when it's brought up. 
Condemn me if you will,  but leave me this epitaph: language is cohesive. Better reading makes better writing.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 7, 2014)

Based on my own experience, I would agree that reading a lot does make for better writing.

That being said, however, I would also say that _writing_ a lot can make for a better writer as well. 

You can read all you want (and I have read a couple thousand fictional stories in my time..maybe more) but until you actually start trying to put the words in coherent order for yourself, well, that's a whole different kind of animal.

Reading, in my humble opinion, is great for showing an aspiring writer what works well and what doesn't (but even THAT is entirely subjective), but as for the actual writing...not so much.


----------



## Sam (Jul 7, 2014)

BeastlyBeast said:


> I'm not a published author. I know what I say would have much more merit if I had a published book or two.



No, it wouldn't. 

I'm a published author and people argue with things I say all the time, as evidenced by this very thread. Having published a book won't make the statement "reading is not important" any less erroneous or foolish. If you think you can become successful without reading, more power to you, but believe me when I say that no published author worth their salt will ever downplay the importance of reading as a writer.


----------



## Jeko (Jul 7, 2014)

> Read enough that you know how to spell and you know the fundamentals of storytelling, and then the rest will come as you practice your craft. One analogy I came up with is; people who say extensive reading is what makes you a good writer are like people who say gorging on enough gourmet meals will magically make you a 5 star chef.



Those people are correct. The only way you can learn how to intricately balance the taste of your food is to discover how other people have done it. That's why chefs taste their food while they cook it; they're looking for the flavours they recognize as being what they want.

Likewise, you learn to talk by listening. Reading and writing have the same relationship.

If you have an aversion to reading other people's work, how are you going to read your own? Not with the same lens as a normal reader, that's for sure, and it will show in the way you write and edit your work.

Trying to write without reading is like trying to breathe out without first breathing in.


----------



## Greimour (Jul 7, 2014)

I don't believe I have yet made contribution to this thread, and though many of the replies are interesting I am going to revert back to the original post and question.

For this I can only give what I deduced myself long before joining this forum.

I was an avid reader. It wasn't uncommon for me to read fifteen books in a week and they weren't genre related. On average it basically equated to 1 diary type book, which includes biographies. 2-3 Non-Fiction and then the rest were fiction. The fiction varied greatly - as example, I will list authors such as Roald Dahl, Michael Crichton, Stephen King, Andy Mcnab, James Herbert, James Patterson, John Grisham, Catherine Cookson, Michael Palin, P. L. Travers, J. K. Rowling... etc... 

My writing in comparison was primarily in the summer and usually during the holidays when I wasn't taking part in outdoor activities. I lived close to a beach, a wood and a mountain as a child... three huge playgrounds in my eyes as a kid. Yet I still found time to write. On average, I would make up three stories per year. Later in life, my stories became one or two, but I spent a great deal more time writing each. 

Eventually my reading and writing lessened to the point it was almost non-existent. Then for a reason I can't be sure of; they picked up again. To me they go hand in hand. I do not write unless I am also reading. Take this post as an example that leans on the extreme side. I would not have written it had I not first read Sam's original post.

All writers in my opinion were readers first. Whether the exercise was later given up I can not say, as I am not them. But for me, I tend to think every writer is a reader- first and foremost. Whether it is true or not hardly concerns me. That is my belief and no matter the arguments presented, I have not yet been dissuaded. 

As a final comment in regards to myself. My ideas for stories are as many as stories I've read. The amount I could not count. However, once I began writing my ideas as stories - it was probably one story written per 15 read. It is highly possible the ratio difference is larger, but I distinctly remember that I wrote 1 story per book tower. 

The book tower:

This was a pyramid structure I encountered in high school (when my writing and reading were a big factor of my routine) that could not be completed if you read just one genre. To complete it, a biography or diary had to be read once, minimum. If I remember right, it was 3 non-fiction books that had to be read. There were other stipulations regarding fiction and to complete the pyramid you had to list the author and book title in each pyramid block. To ensure no cheating, the teacher would ask specific question that could trap those that simply skimmed the story. Or he might just have you write an essay about one of the stories within. I was often more than happy to write an essay about each story. 

On average, I wrote one of my own stories per completion of said book tower. So that is where I find the ratio 1:15 for written vs read. 

I do have the belief that each person is different and what matters is what works. But like others, I have never known an author to not also be an avid reader.


I think my view on the subject is likely equal to Sam's; though not exactly identical and perhaps a little more lenient on certain factors.


[EDIT]



stormageddon said:


> I still don't think reading is as crucial to  writing as has been suggested. You learn a lot from it, but once you  have a certain amount of base knowledge, there's only so helpful it can  be. But again, that very much depends on the individual. I find at this  point that reading a lot makes my writing worse, significantly so, and  as such I tend to read only when I know it will be beneficial, or when I  find an incredible book/series, which happens perhaps once a year  (often less).



To me, that kind of proves how crucial reading is to writing. Your view was that once a certain amount of base knowledge is attained, reading becomes less crucial. I am not going to argue against the view as I couldn't possibly know for certainty one way or the other. It still shows however that writers are readers first. 

Next you say that reading makes your writing worse. Though it is hard to imagine, I instantly felt that I could sympathize with the comment. After I read a book by Joe Abercrombie - it took a long time to reassess my writing style and get it back under control. I hadn't realized immediately how much his writing had influenced me and it messed with how I wrote. Equally, poorly written stories sometimes planted a subconscious thought that stated it was OK to do things that I fundamentally disagreed with. This too messed with my writing.

Oddly, it was reading more that let me overcome the influences of other writers. By reading more I was able to understand better writing styles and techniques, this in turn allowed me to be more aware of my own style and applications of writing. Through this I was able to look at my own writing objectively, which allowed me to restructure my own style based on choice rather than influence. This I think was a huge step forward in my writing and I have no choice but to accredit that fact to all the reading I had done and continue to do. 

-- Equally, I too rarely find books that interest me anymore. One or two a year wouldn't be an understatement. But sometimes I just re-read stories I liked in the past. A second look at styles and techniques I liked - or perhaps just the stories themselves - allows me to continually develop my own writing skills. 

I only share this view with you because I wanted to express that I see your point of view and I relate to it. Despite that however, my view is still different and I hope my reasons help you understand why. 

Regards,


~Kev.


----------



## Deafmute (Jul 7, 2014)

Can you speak a foreign language if you never hear other people speak it? yes

can you write a novel if you never read other people's novels? yes

Can you speak a foreign language WELL without exposure to the culture, innuendo, accent, pacing, expressions, sentence structuring, etc... that you gain from listening to native speakers? No

I think you can finish this analogy yourself.


----------



## allyson17white (Jul 7, 2014)

I can't say I know if it helps my writing any but I agree that reading expands my mind, so I read. My goal over the summer is to read as many classics I can (I'm going through I list I got from my future English teacher). I've just started on Lord of the Flies. I've only gotten through two so far, though. I'm not a fast reader and it's reasonable to say that it distracts me from writing. Then, people are very different. Some may not need (or want) to write at all and others may read all the time, and it helps. However, for me personally, I sort of go in and out of habits with reading. I still try to read often, though.


----------



## Seedy M. (Aug 11, 2014)

Reading is seeing things through another person's perspective. It is educational on several levels. Different people have different needs. I read a lot until 1983, when I wrote the first book worth the effort. It was based on a true experience, allowing me to write from my own perspective. I read quite a lot until the mid-nineties, then less after moving to Panamá.
Writing 257 books since 1983 left me time to read, and I did. Moving, having some new experiences, good and bad, and other parts of life left me with almost no reading since 2007. I wrote more than 100 books since that time.
At first, the reading gave me ideas. I always got ideas through observations. One may train him/herself to observe, to form a scenario in the mind, from many things seen, felt and heard. It is a matter of individual psychology whether you garner more from reading than from observation.
There is more than one answer to that question. For you, reading is critical. For me, it is not, though it was a large part of my basic store of material.


----------



## Poet of Gore (Sep 14, 2014)

J.T. Chris said:


> I see you revived an old thread.  I only want to chime in in case some poor young bloke reads the rubbish in here.
> 
> Anyone who claims that reading isn't important won't make a nickel from writing.  Kids, if you want to have a modicum of success,  read well and read often.



I think it is good to read up until a certain point. i think once you find your voice/style that it really is not important to read much.
Like i said previously i am very careful about what i read when i write and if i am doing what is a final draft i will only read the same book over and over (well, as far as reading before i write for the day). it helps me keep focused on my style if this makes sense.

lots of stuff i read and think is good, i say it is a good book but i don't want to write like that.

this might sound arrogant or whatever, but i remember this about a director or author, where they said that they moved beyond the point of being able to be inspired by other artists in their same medium. i think at some point you have to say that YOUR style is the best and fuck everyone else's. you have to have confidence in your own writing. that is the way i look at it.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 14, 2014)

> i think once you find your voice/style that it really is not important to read much.



If your voice is perfect, then yes. But you'd be the first writer to have perfected their voice.



> remember this about a director or author, where they said that they moved beyond the point of being able to be inspired by other artists in their same medium. i think at some point you have to say that YOUR style is the best and fuck everyone else's.



The person's attitude is a common one among professionals, but you've misinterpreted it. It means that a sci-fi writer can only be inspired by sci-fi for so long, or a film-maker can only be inspired by film for so long, etc. Eventually you have to widen your reception of art - though I find starting with a wider reception more useful.

If your style is the best, how will you improve it? Confidence isn't the same as hubris; the latter is an ill-fated manifestation of the former, and something that every learning writer should avoid. Unless you are God Almighty, you are not the best storyteller, and no-one's going to care even if think you are; what matters is how well you can tell your stories, and you can always tell them better.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 14, 2014)

I'm in between. I have a definite style that I'm not going to change. But I'm still trying to learn to be a better writer. So when I read King or Kinsella, I can learn things.

And you never know when another style or genre might help you with a little part of your book. (Which makes this a good time to mention the CoF contest.)


----------



## Poet of Gore (Sep 15, 2014)

Cadence said:


> If your voice is perfect, then yes. But you'd be the first writer to have perfected their voice.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no one ever has a perfected voice and i never said that. i said that eventually most authors find their voice and want to write in their style. reading is fun but i think that you get to a point where you do not NEED to read other peoples stuff.
it comes down to this, the only reason you need to read other stuff to help you write is for imitation.

as far as what i said about some author or director saying that about not needing to read or watch movies, whatever it was, it was exactly that. you get to a point where you do not want to imitate. you know what you are doing and that is that.

Think about painters. Do you think that Picasso had to look at other painters to get better at a certain point?

you don't need to have a perfect voice to be a great writer. I still read a lot of books but i am not getting anything to help my writing out of it. maybe if i was writing in a certain genre i would check out some stuff just to see what is normal. or currently i have to go through some lovecraft stuff just to get my story lovecraftian enough, but it is in no way a lovecraft story. it is more of a person losing who he is and not being able to interact with the world dressed up as a lovecraft story.

i don't want to sound like any other writer. it is just not interesting to me. the only thing that makes you different than every other writer out there is your voice.


----------



## Jared77 (Nov 15, 2014)

I read and have read a lot, but not necessarily fiction (And I'm trying to be a fiction writer!)

The idea that "you must read a lot of fiction in order to be a fiction writer" currently does not resonate with me.  I feel like I've read "enough" fiction for now in order to be a writer, though I am in the process of reading a couple novels.  I read slow and often when I pick up a novel so many of them just don't interest me after I start.

The trick for me is that in my life I've read lots of different types of writing, and have studied film extensively.  I've read:

- traditional fiction (of course)
- film studies books (Minor in Film in college)
- screenplays (and written screenplays)
- history books (Minor in History)
- Theology (TONS of theology - Masters Degree)
- magazines
- various other non-fiction: real-life stories about human nature, the plight of living in our real world, the soul's search for meaning, etc.
- heck, even children's books! (I have a 3-year old girl)

All of this stuff together has informed my writing and storytelling ability.  So when I hear the "You must be a reader to be a writer," it seems to be implicit that this is referring to fiction and it makes me cringe a little.  But perhaps fiction is not always in mind by that statement.


----------



## johnl (Jan 28, 2015)

I tend to think reading can help to get ideas of how to write, is good.
Also I feel a reader can tend to copy a particular writer that they like reading.
Because of this, the writer who is "copying, intentional or not" will tend to be not writing as good as they have the ability.
Since they will not be "writing their own stuff".


----------



## cinderblock (Feb 18, 2015)

I think it's great to read as much as possible. That said, books aren't my only inspiration. I also draw from videogames and TV shows, so it's very hard to assimilate as much info as possible, and write at the same time, while working. I also work out. I'm always trying to juggle everything, but having said that, I write more than I engage in any other activity. I write all day when I'm not working with no breaks other than to eat, and on work days, I clock at least six hours of writing. I'm trying to write one book a year.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 19, 2015)

Authors of fiction sometimes overlook the benefits of reading non-fiction, I think.


----------



## Arrakis (Mar 5, 2015)

Reading definitely does help writers improve their craft. It's just like a martial arts apprentice watching the experts fight, and a ballet student watching a stage performance. There are those whom are talented and those whom are not, but at the end of the day, it is how human beings grow and find new ways to be themselves: by observing and interacting with others.

I've been writing at a fairly advanced level since I was very young, but the more I read other people's books, the better I became.


----------



## Sam (Mar 6, 2015)

Thanks for your reply. 

Incidentally, and since it's semi-related to the topic of reading, you should know that the quote in your signature is misattributed to Albert Einstein. 

He never said it.


----------



## PatriciaLoupee (Mar 6, 2015)

I'm always reading something, all the time - I keep a book in my purse while I'm away from home, to read it during bus and train travels, and a different one in my nightstand I read a bit before going to bed: Stephen King's The Stand in my purse and one of the Arséne Lupin series in the nightstand - which I'm not enjoying as much as I thought I would.

Which brings me to the fact that, after turning my life into writing I read less, but much more critically. If something bores me, I'll give the book away without finishing it, something I would never do in my early reading days (since I started reading chapter books, as a kid). 

I just don't have the time for it anymore, and every now and then, I just can't stop thinking about how I could make it better. Then I use the time I would be reading with writing - that's the only thing that changes for me in regard of "reading as a writer".


----------



## Arrakis (Mar 7, 2015)

Sam said:


> Thanks for your reply.
> 
> Incidentally, and since it's semi-related to the topic of reading, you should know that the quote in your signature is misattributed to Albert Einstein.
> 
> He never said it.



Dear me, is that so? Serves me right for not double-checking.


----------



## dayletrice (Mar 11, 2015)

I believe that writers read before starting to write. How would a writer love or know how to write if he/she doesn't know how to make a reader want to read what he has written? I have read before different kinds of book and has appreciated some of them. Well, that is for me.


----------



## Phil Istine (Mar 11, 2015)

It's an old thread but, I believe, an important one.  I, for one, am pleased that it has not been allowed to suffer from rigor mortis.  I am also quite astonished that the thread exists at all - but each of us is unique.

For me, writing without reading would be like trying to run a petrol engine that has been fed with diesel.

I'm no youngster but in a way that helps due to life experience.
Although a very bright student, I was denied a decent education by being pulled from school at fifteen; my screwed up family of origin could merit an entire novel in its own right.  I had some very difficult years in early adulthood and never caught up with my education.
So I went back to school a couple of years ago via the evening class route.  In a short space of time, Shakespeare was transfomed from an Evil Bard who had been placed on this Earth to annoy centuries of schoolchildren to a genius who could see into a reader's soul.  Orwell changed from that commy bloke who wrote some stories about authoritarian oppression to a man who was possibly ahead of his time and knew how to express some of our deeper fears.  So it goes on...
I acquired the top marks possible in that evening class - the tutor imploring me to take things further.
There have been occasional signposts directing me towards writing - but the words were fuzzy - like the misty memories of some half forgotten dream.
I find myself seeking out books of films that I have seen because I want to know how the author portrayed a certain person, place or thing.  At the moment I am reading "Carrie" by Stephen King; I have not been disappointed.  Having been brought up by religious nutcases, I have an empathy with Carrie White at quite a deep level.
I am a slower reader than I once was because now I also read in a way that allows me to absorb the language - to chew each mouthful and taste the tangy flavours.
I'm not a prolific reader but I get through a minimum of one book per month - occasionally two or three in winter when my working hours are shorter.
As for my writing - piece by painful piece I'm putting together some sort of autobiography.  I have actually been surprised at how much humour there is even in the darkest of places.  It isn't even chronological at this stage; I write scenes as they come to mind.  I can join the dots later.
Although I have quite an active imagination and can see the world in an offbeat way, without reading material to inspire me I would struggle badly.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Mar 11, 2015)

Sam said:


> There seems to be a prevalent belief among certain people that writers do not need to read a great deal to become better writers. Whilst I have many times advocated a position of there being no rules in writing, when it comes to style and the manner in which the story is presented, I feel strongly that every writer should read as much as they possibly can. I would venture a guess that every knowledgeable person on the subject would agree with this hypothesis, but yet there are those who insist that reading "every once in a while" can just be as beneficial.
> 
> There also seems to be a belief that you can't read widely and still find time to write significantly, or that one is more important than the other, both of which are, in my opinion, asinine assertions.
> 
> What say you?



I don't know where people get the idea that you don't have to read much to become a good writer. On the contrary I find it quite essential to do as much reading as possible to become a good writer, provided that you're reading good stuff. That way, you see how other good writers do it. Since you're writing for an audience of readers, you have to know what its like to be in that audience, you have to know what it is to be a reader if you want to be a writer. So if you ask me, reading is essential to being a good writer. They even say that one of the ways to become a good writer is to read like crazy. And I would have to agree with that, to become really good at writing read like crazy.


----------



## KellInkston (Mar 25, 2015)

I feel these views on writing exude more than a little bit of poppycockery.

Reading a book by a skilled author is like taking a piece of masterwork pottery in one's hands and studying it closely- discovering the intricacies of the glazing, polish, and the mark of the potter's hands upon the vase. Of course, just picking up the vase and putting flowers in it without appreciating the craftsmanship is largely a waste of time for an aspiring potter- much better it would be to study the masterwork, and add the knowledge and experience of another to your own repertoire. Now I won't say that if you don't read you cannot be a good writer, because it is largely _untrue._  There are those who are fast runners without training, just so there are people who are naturally talented as authors. However on the battlefield of the page, I believe having a deep bag of tools overcomes a singular, genius-level tool any day- the jack of all trades will win out when it comes to writing techniques.

On the thought of a person not having enough time to read properly and write properly yes, I feel this has truth to it. In all honesty, to contribute the truly "proper" amount of attention to reading, one would have to read every moment of their lives- the same with writing. There are simply some things you will never get to read, and some things you will never get to write; that is both the curse of mortality, and its blessing, as in our desperation the things we choose to write become all the more valuable.

S-sorry if I was rambling. >.>


----------



## Sam (Mar 25, 2015)

KellInkston said:


> Now I won't say that if you don't read you cannot be a good writer, because it is largely _untrue._



No, it's _very _true. 

Can someone be a natural writer? Of course they can. Just like someone can be a natural guitarist, singer, or any other profession that requires talent. But if that person wants to write their own songs, but refuses to listen to the masters who came before, they're not going to get very far. How can you learn how to do something right if you don't know how to avoid doing it wrong? 

It's not enough to just write. If you have bad habits when you sit behind the wheel of a car, you're not going to correct them by refusing to look at the mechanics of what you're doing wrong. If you have a bad golf stroke, you don't correct it by refusing to change. You correct it by looking at the strokes of the Rory McIlroys and the Tiger Woodses. 

You can write until the cows come home, but if you're doing it wrong to start with, you'll always do it wrong. The only way to learn how to do it right is to study how the masters do it.


----------



## RhythmOvPain (Mar 25, 2015)

My greatest desire to read came from my burning desire to write better than I did.

I focused on books that I liked, from authors who sold big. I looked at how they used their dialogue and paragraph structure and how they explained scenery and introduced characters.

I had a basic idea of how to write the wrong way, which translates into the little twang my writing has that makes it different from everyone else's. However, from reading other peoples' writing and actually learning something from it, I took short paragraphs with long sentences and turned them into long paragraphs with easily digestible ones. I learned how to make a conversation interesting and how to make a monologue AWESOME.

Writing the same thing over and over does not allow you to develop nearly as much as if you use the works of established authors as at least a reference. You may want to NOT do what they do, or you may do things DIFFERENTLY from how they do it, but you will, inevitably, pick SOMETHING up.


----------



## BurntMason84 (Mar 29, 2015)

I couldn't say... I really don't read that much anymore.  I do have to say that my writing has improved by 10 to the gabillionth (see, made a new word there, right on the spot) degree as compared to when I was a kid.  Maybe not even improved as becoming more refined, perhaps focused?  Maybe?  No?  ... whatever, I didn't want your opinion anyway.  

Don't get me wrong; I love books.  I find it neat to see my wife or sister's works, both who love to write, and their styles.  They both have a handful of authors that they like and follow, and I notice that their writing styles, while much their own, seem to mimic their favorite author's styles quite a bit.  As for me, I completely and utterly mimic every bit I see at random... if that makes any lick of sense what-so-ever.  Never had an author that I had to follow, but always had a list of favorite books I'd just happen to cross upon, or even articles in digests, newspapers, journals and magazines for that matter.

Furthermore, I believe it boils right on down to if you like to write, or if you love to write, or if you even _love_ to write.  Different passions stoke different flames, from kindles to bonfires.  For instance, and I think this falls right down in line with most of us aspiring writers; I love to observe.  Not creepy, candid, spying type of observation, but just sitting in a parking lot waiting for the wife to gather whatever she might want from the store while I just "people watch".  Start making stories to random peoples lives like a bad episode of "Mystery Science Theater 3000".  If I see a frazzled young woman in a yoga outfit who is carrying a new born baby, odds are she is probably is having a rough day adapting to a newborn while holding a job or running the household.  However, my imagination drifts to a former mob girlfriend who is on the lamb since she stole umpteen million from her ex-husband, suffering withdrawals from the speed she use to take.  She doesn't know how to blend into suburbia, and figured the yoga outfit was a good fit to become a Jane Doe in the public's eye, though the baby wasn't truly hers, but a woman who died after she had accidentally taken a bullet for the mob woman and the baby was endangered because of the situation.

Long story short, I think it doesn't matter how much you read or much you don't read, but that it come right down to how much imagination you have and how much you practice writing, even if in your own head instead of pen and paper.  No matter if you're a novice or a savant, you still need to perceive everything and put forth some effort to produce any sort of masterpiece.


----------



## Bevo (May 3, 2015)

As a new writer I agree with the above, imagination is really important and reading helps. My wife who is not a reader would look at that yoga pant baby girl and say something practical, she is late, baby is cranky where I as a writer would also think mob or criminal maybe even stripper.

Reading opens the mind and allows you to explore from the comfort of your home, it will also give you knowledge you would never see in real life. I think we have all read a book and found something really interesting we did not know, how many have googled it?

Last year before my cycling trip to Italy I read everything I could about the area, sitting in a villa that was a key piece of action in the war I was transported back to the book and could see it in real time. Reading about the races on the same roads I was on was incredible, to know that something happened over a section of road made it special to share that road with them. Others in my group had no idea about the villa or history under our wheels.

In writing you are giving that experience to others, it's great if you are using what you have seen but if not, where do you get the inspiration from? TV and movies are good but it's like a random picture, fast and gone, a book puts you in the scene and with good writting allows you to escape your life and join the story.

Saying that I agree that it's important, I also agree life is busy but will making it hard to find time but will add that being an avid reader that has slowed down due to life still understands the story. Think of a computer without internet, only what you put in can you acces, if you put nothing in you have nothing to use.


----------



## scrub puller (Jun 9, 2015)

Yair . . . 

Everything I know about writing I learnt from reading.

My Mum taught me to read and by the time I went to my first school aged six or seven I was reading books. 

I never continued with school and have no formal knowledge of English except an intuitive understanding of what is 'right'

This has been gleaned from the thousands of books I have read across the years.

Every month I request latest titles and publicised reviewed books from the library. I flick through them and speed read to see how other folks are "doing stuff" and consider it an essential part of the writing process.

Cheers.


----------



## authorette (Jul 30, 2015)

I read a quote from Tony Robbins _Awaken the Giant Within _book this week that sums this topic up nicely - "Readers are Leaders". How can you, as a storyteller, find your voice if there is nothing to compare yourself to? How can you even see what you will write like until you have been exposed to tons of different writing styles? Even Shakespeare was inspired by Chaucer, giving birth to finding his own way to tell stories. 

I have read tons of fiction up until 8 years ago and have been on a non-fiction binge since then. I guess it's time for me to pre-load my Barnes & Noble account and buy some fiction!


----------



## JustRob (Jul 30, 2015)

stormageddon said:


> As for being passionate about writing, I saw part of an interview with Ian M Banks and he saw it as a job, more a chore than anything. His real passion was for composing, and yet it's writing that he's famous for.



Coincidentally I was just quoting Iain M Banks on another thread. As a computer systems designer who realised that I had a knack for writing fiction I'd say that there are many forms of creativity that require the same basic skills, composing music, fiction or computer logic being among them. They are just different languages with different SPAG after all. No doubt Banks's passion came through in many things that he did regardless of his motives for doing them.

As an accidental writer I can't comment, but would mention that I am the sort of person who walks into a library, preferably a library to save money, and picks a book almost at random off the shelves, even in the factual sections. Hence I have read about such things as the perpetual fetish nature of virtually all clothing in _The Unfashionable Human Body _and a complete history of swearing in _Boozimacoo. _My choice of fiction authors has been equally erratic, so I know how to write badly and still get published as well as how to write well. Hence whatever my motive for writing I could probably find a style to suit even though I have never seriously planned to write.

At present I am hurrying to finish reading _Consider Phlebas _by the late Mr. Banks, not that I'm not enjoying it but because I've just bought secondhand the textbook _Religion and the Decline of Magic (Studies in popular beliefs in sixteenth and seventeenth century England)_ by Keith Thomas. My reason for buying it was to a great extent the commendation on the cover "a great historical imagination." I myself have a history project as a WIP and have no idea how to mix what I have discovered as fact and my own conjecture filling the gaps. Perhaps by reading this book with its copious footnotes and references, on some pages taking up more space than the text itself, I may grasp how to employ a "historical imagination" effectively while still being accepted as a valid writer of history rather than a romantic. Of course the subject matter is intriguing in any case.

We read and write all sorts of documents in our lives and they are all literature in their own way. Even when writing a complaining letter I try to be as entertaining as I am in my posts here because it's more likely to achieve my objective. In fact when I took to writing fiction my first work was a short story in the form of a letter of complaint to a solicitor, something that I've had much practice at.

Yes, there may have been an embryonic writer looking over my shoulder in my mind all these years but I've never specifically considered feeding him on any particular diet. He is just a product of our times and my experience.

Now on the subject of feeding my angel is screaming calling for me to go and eat my dinner.


----------



## Foxee (Jul 30, 2015)

Sam said:


> There also seems to be a belief that you can't read widely and still find time to write significantly, or that one is more important than the other, both of which are, in my opinion, asinine assertions.


My lack of significant writing has more to do with a roaring case of kids and a significant case of leadbottom than with my reading time. I read when I brush my teeth and it would be really awkward to try to substitute writing instead.

It always surprises me when people think that they 'don't have to' read...don't they _want_ to?

Does not compute.


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Jul 30, 2015)

Personally I think all the best writers love to read. I know that my grammar has gotten better just from listening to audiobooks 24/7. Which are great, by the way, if you 'don't have time' to read. Some days I only listen to a book for 15 minutes because that was how long I was in the car and had a free ear. Other days I listen constantly.

I never understood when someone says they don't read or don't want to read. Reading is fun! Reading is one of the reasons I got into writing - because I want to read stories that haven't been written yet but only exist in my head.


----------

