# Is it wrong for me to be a Writer



## srebak (Dec 27, 2011)

Is it wrong for me to try to be an author if i've never read a full chapter book? Thanks to the internet and occassionally TV and Movies, i've managed to get a certain amount of information about certain books and the authors that wrote them. I know about the books written by R.L. Stine and J.R.R. Tolkien but i've never actually read them. I have read parts of the Redwall books but i got most of my information about them from either looking online or watching the TV adaptation. Is it wrong to try and be a writer myself?

​


----------



## Dramatism (Dec 28, 2011)

I don't think so.  You can teach yourself certain things.  It's kind of like...

Well, I have a hobby of quilling (involves the art of rolling thin paper strips).  If, for some reason, watching someone quill is something people do, I could watch him do it, and learn how to do it in a way.  And just like with reading- it doesn't directly correlate to writing.  There are obstacles that won't be obvious to you when you watch- or read something, but certainly watching or reading can help.  Seeing a pro do something always makes it easier than it really is.

I taught myself how to quill, but that's just because it's not like there are classes out there for it everywhere.  I don't know anyone that does it.  But for writing, there are books readily available to back-handedly give you ideas for plot twists and how to describe certain things and what one could leave out, etc.

I used directions to teach myself, I experimented.  There are resources where you too could learn how to write, through this forum and other sources, but sometimes, it's good to see someone's result.

Bottom line?  Sure you can still write, but there could be more obstacles for you to cross.


----------



## Sunny (Dec 28, 2011)

srebak said:


> Is it wrong for me to try to be an author if i've never read a full chapter book?


Heck no! 

How or why would it be wrong? You may not be the best at it at first, but no one is. We all need practice and guidance. I think it will help you become a stronger writer if you read plenty of books. Just because they help us to learn the different techniques, plotting, styles and voices that a writer uses. But that's not to say it's wrong to want to be an author. Maybe you'll be one of the best there is. Maybe you just have a natural talent for it and your writing will be brilliant. Who knows. 

If you want to do something, like being a writer, no one can tell you what the right way is. We're all different, and go about learning it differntly.


----------



## The Backward OX (Dec 28, 2011)

Yes


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 28, 2011)

You learn so much about writing from reading books (including books with significant flaws in them) which you won't find in any writing guide.  That doesn't mean reading the 'Must Read 100' (which is garbage), however I do believe you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't read.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 28, 2011)

If you have never read how are you going to tell whether what you have written is any good, you will have no valid means by which to make comparisons. Reading and practice, the more you understand the basics of the craft the higher your imagination will be able to soar...


----------



## Rob (Dec 28, 2011)

srebak said:


> Is it wrong to try and be a writer myself?


Wrong? No, there's no right and wrong about it, but conventional wisdom is that to be a writer you need to also be a reader. If you haven't read much in the past, there's no reason why you can't begin now, while you're learning the craft.


----------



## AvA (Dec 28, 2011)

I don't think being a writer is "right or wrong", it is either being a "good or not-so-good" writer. Either way, it's always good to supplement your writing with a few good reads.

And of course, the book tends to be better than the movie/tv show itself, so you should give it a try!


----------



## Kevin (Dec 28, 2011)

All the stars do it. Why not you? I bet even the kardashians got book deals. Nah, don't tell me...


----------



## Sam (Dec 28, 2011)

Asking whether it's right or wrong is an unanswerable, if not irrelevant, question. 

The question you need to ask is whether you can become a good writer without ever reading a book. Most people will tell you the answer to that is a resounding no. There are two key stages to being a 'good' writer. One of them is imagination. Maybe that's your strong point. However, a good imagination is only backed up by the way in which the author presents the ideas. This is where the second stage, presentation, comes in. If your writing is all over the place stylistically, it doesn't matter how good your ideas are; your work will always be hindered by poor presentation. 

There are some people who are naturally talented and can write beautiful prose without ever having picked up a book. These are few and far between. The reality, in my opinion, is that if you want to further your craft you have to start taking reading seriously.


----------



## Nacian (Dec 28, 2011)

writing is free.


----------



## C.M. Aaron (Dec 28, 2011)

Ask yourself why you have never finished reading a book. That answer might tell you certain things about your potential as a writer and the obstacles you will have to overcome before you succeed. Maybe you dislike stories. Maybe you dislike people/characters. Maybe you lack patience or the discipline to finish a long-term project. I do not know why you dislike books and reading, but I see problems for someone who dislikes reading becoming a writer. You are not the only one. I dislike most fiction, and I struggle as a storyteller, or at least a conventional storyteller who could develop a market following. There might be some people out there who might like what I write but these people don't buy books because they are like me - they don't like fiction.   C.M.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 28, 2011)

You're certainly free to try though writing a novel is hard work (except for a blessed few). There are many stops along the way where you've got to gut out what happens next and write it rather than having it come easy. If you don't know what the finished product is really supposed to be like what will you do in those times? Why do you want to tackle the production of something you only know by rough description?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 28, 2011)

If you don't read, and only go by television, movies, and internet, I can't imagine ending up with a book that isn't full of hackneyed clichés and slang. Not to mention characters that are more caricatures. Any book adaptations you see on TV or in movies are cut and trimmed to fit within a time frame. The internet is like reading a cheat sheet.

IMHO, to be a good writer you have to love reading, love words, love learning how other people put them together into something special. So if you want to be a writer, start reading (and finish what you start!).


----------



## bazz cargo (Dec 28, 2011)

Hi,
You do what you want to do. As long as no-one gets hurt, or any laws are broken. Best of luck.


----------



## philistine (Dec 28, 2011)

> [FONT=arial, sans-serif]_I never desire to converse with a man who has written more than he has read.
> 
> - Samuel Johnson
> _[/FONT]



I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Walkio (Dec 28, 2011)

Have a go, of course, if you want. But as others have said, the advice for budding writers is always 'write a lot and read a lot.'

If you don't like reading, how are you going to cope with editing and proofing your own work?!


----------



## patskywriter (Dec 28, 2011)

are you asking for 'permission' to write or are you actually working on something? get started now and see what you come up with.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 28, 2011)

srebak said:


> Is it wrong for me to try to be an author if i've never read a full chapter book? Thanks to the internet and occassionally TV and Movies, i've managed to get a certain amount of information about certain books and the authors that wrote them. I know about the books written by R.L. Stine and J.R.R. Tolkien but i've never actually read them. I have read parts of the Redwall books but i got most of my information about them from either looking online or watching the TV adaptation. Is it wrong to try and be a writer myself?



Absatively, posolutely not.  Yeah, some people think you need to read novels to write novels but I completely disagree and think it is a snotty sort of attitude to have.  You need to be able to understand story telling structure and you can get that from a variety of sources other than just books.  You can also learn grammar and sentence stucture from other places as well.

The belief that you can learn a lot about writing by reading should be tempered with the understanding that you can pick up some very bad habits if you read the wrong books from the wrong authors, some of which may or may not be popular or even best selling authors believe it or not.  I have read a lot of bad books by published authors who have a lot of books on the shelves of the local bookstore.

Just go for it.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 28, 2011)

srebak said:


> Is it wrong for me to try to be an author if i've never read a full chapter book? Thanks to the internet and occassionally TV and Movies, i've managed to get a certain amount of information about certain books and the authors that wrote them. I know about the books written by R.L. Stine and J.R.R. Tolkien but i've never actually read them. I have read parts of the Redwall books but i got most of my information about them from either looking online or watching the TV adaptation. Is it wrong to try and be a writer myself?



You keep using the word "information" as if attaining it is the only purpose of reading. There's far more to reading than attaining data and statistics. Good authors are like gift-givers, offering you insights into the world, fresh new perspectives, allowing you to glimpse different facets of the human condition. A strong writer can challenge you to think differently, a skilled storyteller can make you believe in the impossible.

If you want to be a writer, there's no better source of inspiration and insight than to see the best in action.


----------



## philistine (Dec 28, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Absatively, posolutely not.  Yeah, *some people think you need to read novels to write novels* but I completely disagree and think it is a snotty sort of attitude to have.  You need to be able to understand story telling structure and you can get that from a variety of sources other than just books.  You can also learn grammar and sentence stucture from other places as well.
> 
> The belief that you can learn a lot about writing by reading should be tempered with the understanding that you can pick up some very bad habits if you read the wrong books from the wrong authors, some of which may or may not be popular or even best selling authors believe it or not.  I have read a lot of bad books by published authors who have a lot of books on the shelves of the local bookstore.
> 
> Just go for it.



Yeah, everyone who doesn't have that attitude writes garbage. So says the greatest of authors of different nationalities, creeds and backgrounds over the last several hundred years.

Again, wise (and true) words from Mr Johnson:



> The best part of a writer's time is spent reading in order to write; a man may turn over half a library to make one book.


----------



## Tiamat (Dec 29, 2011)

Would you try to build a house if you'd only ever seen hazy, black and white photographs of the outside, but nothing of the inside?  My guess is no.

Mind you, I don't see that it really matters if you really want to write a novel, even though you don't read.  In fact, if you do write it, I'd love to read the first couple of chapters, just to see what you come up with.  It's kind of like a blind audition, so I say have at it.  It'd be an interesting experiment--just don't expect it to be a best-seller.


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Yeah, some people think you need to read novels to write novels but I completely disagree and think it is a snotty sort of attitude to have.


Seriously? In your experience, people with this attitude are just being 'snotty'? I've seen similar discussions many times and never seen that suggested. Those who believe you should read in order to be able to write are normally pretty grounded and present valid reasons for their argument, whether they're agreed with or not.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> You need to be able to understand story telling structure and you can get that from a variety of sources other than just books.  You can also learn grammar and sentence stucture from other places as well.


What are those sources? Do they show not only the conventions for grammar and sentence structure, but how those conventions can be broken? And what about other techniques: characterisation, pace, tension, suspense, conflict, figurative language, rhythm, description, show and tell, and so on? Do those other sources cover everything you'd need?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Dec 29, 2011)

Everyone seems to assume that only books or novels are written, all that stuff you watched on television started off as written material, perhaps you should try writing what you know.
There is also a quote from Mark Twain that might be considered relevant however, "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can not read them", maybe it's time to try.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

the good news is you can definitely be 'a writer', the bad news is you almost certainly won't be 'a good writer'. think of it along similar lines as somebody who only ever eats hamburgers and ramen noodles trying to open a fine dining restaurant. sure, the fact you've no experience of good food doesn't mean you don't have a passion for creating it and, hell, you may even be quite a talented chef. but what are you going to do when it comes to actually creating a menu that's imaginative and colorful? how will you organize things? how will you know what 'characters' you want working in your kitchen? if you're a writer who doesn't read then in my opinion you're disadvantaging yourself in an already highly-competitive environment.

that being said, it's not a simple question. for one thing, it might depend on what kind of writer you intend on being. to continue the analogy, if your ambitions are strictly to produce work that some might call 'fast-food literature' - i.e books that aren't renowned for their literary quality so much as their sale-ability then it might be more feasible. i don't have a whole lot of interest in books like that personally, so this is kind of conjecture on my part, but I read somewhere that Stephanie Meyer - who I would definitely put in the category of 'fast food author' - managed to write the entire twilight saga without ever having read 'Dracula' by Bram Stoker. if that's the case i would imagine she probably never read 'Don Quixote' or 'War & Peace' either. so there might be a precedent there, as far as succesful-authors-who-don't-read go. i also wouldn't say that the demand to read need not be constant, as many suggest. if your time is restricted (and whose isn't?) to the point where you have to choose whether to read or write with that two or three hours of free time you have each day, then i'd always pick writing over reading (provided you have an idea of course). personally i only now average three or four full length books a year, where once i would have read that much in a month. everyone is different. i read less now because i write more, but it's perhaps a little different for me than other people because i started reading books as soon as i was old enough to read and am confident in my understanding of how stories and characters are developed to the point where i now feel ready to create my own. if you are not at that point, and if you're not then you'll find out very quickly once you start writing, then for God's sake try to read. even if it's something short and simple, just try.

another thing i'd say is that there's nothing wrong with using movies to inspire your writing. a lot of people seem to have the idea that a writer should be influenced only by books (these are the same people who say that the movie is *always* better than the book). and some movie adaptions ARE better than the book(s) they're based on. not terribly many, but some. 'The Godfather' for instance is generally considered one of the greatest movies of all time, but I once tried to read Mario Puzo's 'The Godfather' and it was...well, let's just say there's a good reason why Mario Puzo is not remembered the same way Marlon Brando is. there's numerous examples. so i wouldn't feel 'lesser' for preferring movies over books. but nonetheless reading is important. behind every great writer there is a good reader and you'll find it that much easier to actually write if you read some, i guarantee it.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

also, i'd read with caution posts that say 'just go for it'. at the risk of sounding like a nazi, you might not be ready. if you really want to be a successful writer (and by successful i mean published, if you're writing for pleasure then this is irrelevant) then try by all means, but if you're not happy with what you're producing at all (which, sadly, is more than likely if you don't read) then don't waste your time beating yourself up with delusions that you can 'absolutely' be a successful writer. if you find after the first paragraph/page/whatever that when you look back it isn't working then *stop. *if you don't read, perhaps get someone who does to do this for you (and make sure it's someone who is actually going to give you an honest opinion. perhaps post it on this forum somewhere). but please don't waste your time. take a deep breath and make up your mind to either visit the bookshop/library and do the groundwork or give up. why? because there's just too many crappy books in this world. sure, someone who doesn't write will never be a respected writer, but write some meaningless crap and you will earn nothing but contempt from anybody with half a brain. not to mention the fact you will be doing yourself a tremendous disadvantage if you do happen to have talent but lack the discipline to study the craft.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 29, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> .. don't waste your time beating yourself up with delusions that you can 'absolutely' be a successful writer... please don't waste your time...make up your mind ..do the groundwork or give up...there's just too many crappy books in this world...write some meaningless crap and you will earn nothing but contempt from anybody with half a brain..



:ChainGunSmiley:
"Die, aspirations, die!"

I'm reminded of the scene in Terminator 2 when Arnold uses the gattling gun to ravage a police squadron. Efficient and ruthless. ;D


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> Efficient and ruthless. ;D


And fun.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

haha. well, it's true. it's at best naive and at worst dishonest to suggest you can be a decent writer without reading. and i don't see much of an excuse for never having read a real book. that kind of attitude is not healthy. the best, and most likely, explanation for such an attitude is laziness, which i can appreciate to a degree. a lot of books are hard to get into and harder still to finish, but what the hell is this? some kind of half-assed sunday afternoon knitting project? anyone who's ever tried to write seriously knows that even short fiction requires a hell of a lot of time and emotional investment to be worth a crap. as for novels, if you're too lazy to read a book i can pretty much guarantee you won't make it much beyond a full chapter before you go watch the damn television. and, if its not down to laziness, then that's actually worse because then its down to a lack of passion and love for the craft. if that's the case then, frankly, i find it quite disrespectful to all the people living and dead who poured their hearts and souls into their work, often for no acclaim whatsoever. and you don't deserve to be called a writer.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 29, 2011)

Rob said:


> Seriously? In your experience, people with this attitude are just being 'snotty'? I've seen similar discussions many times and never seen that suggested. Those who believe you should read in order to be able to write are normally pretty grounded and present valid reasons for their argument, whether they're agreed with or not.



Yes, I do.  Snotty: "Having or showing a superior or conceited attitude."  When people say you have to read to be a good writer, a terrible aboslute to prove and we all know the rule on absolutes, they let their air of superiority and their conceited attitude that they have the answer on the path that must be followed show.  This is a vain possition, usually taken by other writers and there is absolutely no justification for it.  All there is is anticdotal evidence that has been passed on and often warped over the years to suit the beliefs of those that want to believe it.



Rob said:


> What are those sources? Do they show not only the conventions for grammar and sentence structure, but how those conventions can be broken? And what about other techniques: characterisation, pace, tension, suspense, conflict, figurative language, rhythm, description, show and tell, and so on? Do those other sources cover everything you'd need?



Short stories for one.  I don't think that was that hard to come up with for anyone that puts any time into considering the topic.  The poster originally discussed not reading "full chapter books".  Any writer who has written knows there are other types of stories besides novels.  Also films.  I know, this is where the snotty attitude of _some_ writters comes out again.  But a good film comes from a screenplay that is written and is just as good as a good book when it comes to conveying "characterisation, pace, tension, suspense, conflict, figurative language, rhythm, description, show and tell, and so on".  It is just done in a different manner.  In a film the scene is always shown.  But anyone with any tallent can easily describe the scene to someone else.

Some people learn skills in different manners.  Some people just cannot accept this and insist those other people do it their way or else they are wrong.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 29, 2011)

philistine said:


> Yeah, everyone who doesn't have that attitude writes garbage. So says the greatest of authors of different nationalities, creeds and backgrounds over the last several hundred years.



There are no absolutes, besides this one.

Best you learn that less you look foolish.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

mathias, you're totally missing the point. nobody's saying that one must read novels. read the OP again. the issue i, and i think most of the people who have similar views to me on this topic, have with what the OP said is that they suggest they base their knowledge of writing SOLELY from the internet, tv and movies. the OP is not saying 'i've never read a full novel but i've read a ton of short stories.' they're saying they *never read. *never, that is, aside from 'parts of the Redwall books'. so i don't know why you're bringing up short stories because, unless the OP is going to suddenly write us a ten thousand word treatise on raymond carver, i think it pretty much goes without saying that this discussion is about whether it's okay to be a writer having never read *any *substantial amount of prose fiction. without knowing everything about the OP, that's the premise i'm going to suggest we're working with here.

that being understood i cannot for the life of me think how you can suggest it's 'snotty' to believe that in order for a writer to be competent, let alone accomplished, they can possibly not read. it's just flat out crazy to infer that. so crazy, in fact, i get the feeling you're only saying it to make some kind of an eccentric, liberal point. but what i think you're failing to understand is that this is not a matter of being snobbish or of being vain or of forcing absolutes. it's a matter of simple logical reasoning. in a sense it IS an absolute, but a reasoned one. would you recommend a wannabe pilot flies a plane without first studying aerodynamics or navigation? would you be all right with somebody building your house without first looking at a plan of what the damn house ought to look like? would you vote for a president who knew nothing about the constitution? sure, you CAN, but it would be foolish. i know you don't think reading is a necessary part of the process, but i assure you it is. i already said i agree insofar that books ought not be the sole resource for a writer and i personally place a lot of value in movies, the internet, television and, most of all, real life. but that doesn't alter the fact that, as rob pointed out, you will not learn certain things from anything else but reading. you can tell the approximate time of day by looking at the stars and sun, but the only way to tell the exact time is by using a watch. you can measure the approximate dimensions of a piece of wood but the only way to measure it precisely is with a tape measure or ruler. books are your watch. books are your tape measure. and to read is the only way to learn exactly how a novel ought to be written. at least for 99.9% of people that's true. and honestly, i don't care if 'some people learn skills in different manners'. well yeah, maybe there will be a writer someday who'll come along having read nothing their whole life but the back of a milk carton and write better than shakespeare. but the chances of that happening are minimal, terribly minimal, and that being the case it's a little unkind and unhelpful for you to assist in deluding the OP that he or she can just go do that when virtually everything in the history and science of literature completely contradicts it. if the OP manages to go and publish something having read nothing i will be the first to congratulate them, but as it is they've got about as much chance as a monkey has of building a cadillac.

'anyone with any talent can easily describe a scene.' are you freaking kidding me??? describing a scene is one of the hardest aspects of writing ANYTHING. well, i suppose in a sense you might be correct. but sadly you're missing out one crucial word in that sentence. NOT anyone with any talent can easily describe a scene CONVINCINGLY.


----------



## patskywriter (Dec 29, 2011)

I still think it's OK to jump in and see what you come up with. I play jazz guitar. I learned by listening to the radio and my record collection and never had the patience to learn theory or even the names of all of the notes. I play well enough to have fun with singers and other musicians, but I'm not serious enough to work harder at becoming more technically proficient (although I used to be a semipro at one point). For me, it's just fun. 

I can definitely imagine a person making a go at writing without "proper" preparation. That person might be moderately successful at a certain level, might discover some latent abilities, or he/she might realize some shortcomings and decide to dig in and do the work. One approach a writer can take is to define his or her audience and figure out a way to connect with it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 29, 2011)

If one wants to know how well one can write just from watching TV or movies or looking through the internet - read fanfic. Seriously. I know, I write fanfic and I've beta'd fanfic and I've read fanfic - and one can tell immediately which authors are readers and which are not (or are 'minimal' readers). Even among those who just slam a story together "for the fun of it" and claim they don't care if it's any good - you can tell. Reading, if nothing else, influences how you think of words and phrases and how you tell a story, however short or long.


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Yes, I do.  Snotty: "Having or showing a superior or conceited attitude."  When people say you have to read to be a good writer, a terrible aboslute to prove and we all know the rule on absolutes, they let their air of superiority and their conceited attitude that they have the answer on the path that must be followed show.


Hit me with that again, Mathias. Let's start with a person who believes that you need to read in order to write. Let's add that someone who has or shows a superior or conceited attitude is snotty. Show me how you get from the first to the second, that someone who believes you need to read in order to writer has a superior or conceited attitude. I missed that link. I saw your statement but didn't see a link. You jumped.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Short stories for one.


That's fine. If that's what you mean then I agree. There are limitations, but you're right, short stories will provide a lot of what I asked about. It doesn't appear to apply in the case of the OP, therefore I discounted it, but if you're generalising, short stories would help.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> I don't think that was that hard to come up with for anyone that puts any time into considering the topic.  The poster originally discussed not reading "full chapter books".


It's not hard to come up with, but if we're talking specifically about the OP, there's no suggestion that short stories are included reading material. If they are, it modifies the question slightly, and if the question is modified, then people might be expected to modify their responses. But we don't need to guess, because the OP can come back to the thread and clarify.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Any writer who has written knows there are other types of stories besides novels.


Probably everyone here then, or most.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Also films.  I know, this is where the snotty attitude of _some_ writters comes out again.  But a good film comes from a screenplay that is written and is just as good as a good book when it comes to conveying "characterisation, pace, tension, suspense, conflict, figurative language, rhythm, description, show and tell, and so on".


Well, I think films are a poor way of finding out about those things, and any suggestion that I'm being snotty is pure bullshit. It's simply, as you concede, that:



Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> It is just done in a different manner.


Precisely this. It's done in a different manner. The mechanism is different. That difference matters. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people start talking about films in a thread about writing. I can see the temptation, because most of us have seen a large number of films, they only take an investment of a couple of hours or so, and it's relatively easy to come up with examples. But typically those people [a] can't make their points in writing terms and * can't name any novels that could be used as examples, and [c] can't demonstrate the ability to apply what they're talking about in their writing. The last is not surprising, because putting words down on a page to achieve an effect is not easily gained from watching something on-screen.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:



			In a film the scene is always shown.
		
Click to expand...

Not always. Sometimes events are reported. There is a parallel here with the way things are either shown directly (what Sol Stein calls immediate scene in Solutions for Writers) or reported in a novel.



Mathias Cavanaugh said:



			Some people learn skills in different manners.  Some people just cannot accept this and insist those other people do it their way or else they are wrong.
		
Click to expand...

Both of those statements are true, but everything I've seen suggests to me that learning how to write by watching movies is a poor and unnecessarily limiting choice, and that a much better way to learn is to read plenty. Nothing snotty about that.*


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 29, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> mathias, you're totally missing the point. nobody's saying that one must read novels. read the OP again. the issue i, and i think most of the people who have similar views to me on this topic, have with what the OP said is that they suggest they base their knowledge of writing SOLELY from the internet, tv and movies. the OP is not saying 'i've never read a full novel but i've read a ton of short stories.' they're saying they *never read. *never, that is, aside from 'parts of the Redwall books'. so i don't know why you're bringing up short stories because, unless the OP is going to suddenly write us a ten thousand word treatise on raymond carver, i think it pretty much goes without saying that this discussion is about whether it's okay to be a writer having never read *any *substantial amount of prose fiction. without knowing everything about the OP, that's the premise i'm going to suggest we're working with here.



No, you are missing the point.  Go back and reread what the oringal poster actually said.  Then read my direct response to what that poster said.  srebak specifically questioned whether or not he/she could be an author because "i've never read a full chapter book".  That is a specific type of writing and it is important for the discussion.  Your "premise" based on this specific information has no foundation and requires far too much assumption.

I brought up short stories because Rob specifically asked "What are those sources?" to my comment "You need to be able to understand story telling structure and you can get that from a variety of sources other than just books. You can also learn grammar and sentence stucture from other places as well."  Short stories are not "full chapter books".  Short stories may be compiled into books but they are not books in and of themselves.

As for the rest of your comment, well it is entirely based on the apparent misunderstanding on your part as to what was actually said and therefore not worth the time to respond to.  To do so would be to accept your faulty premise and give it validity.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 29, 2011)

Rob said:


> Hit me with that again, Mathias. Let's start with a person who believes that you need to read in order to write. Let's add that someone who has or shows a superior or conceited attitude is snotty. Show me how you get from the first to the second, that someone who believes you need to read in order to writer has a superior or conceited attitude. I missed that link. I saw your statement but didn't see a link. You jumped.



You missed the link because you don't want to see it.  If you believe that the only way to become a good author is to read and that there is no other way you are not just promoting the "superiority" of your possition but doing so with an air of conceit or an excessive appreciation of one's own worth (of opinion).



Rob said:


> That's fine. If that's what you mean then I agree. There are limitations, but you're right, short stories will provide a lot of what I asked about. It doesn't appear to apply in the case of the OP, therefore I discounted it, but if you're generalising, short stories would help.



Why would you discount it?  The OP specifically refered to not reading just "full chapter book"s.  He mentioned nothing else therefore to assume something else would be a gross mistake on your part.  Sure you might be right that the OP reads nothing but that would only be by blind, dumb luck.



Rob said:


> It's not hard to come up with, but if we're talking specifically about the OP, there's no suggestion that short stories are included reading material. If they are, it modifies the question slightly, and if the question is modified, then people might be expected to modify their responses. But we don't need to guess, because the OP can come back to the thread and clarify.



There is no suggestion that they were not.  You are attempting to debate based upon an assumption which has no proof of truth and reading the mind of the OP.  That is not how you construct an argument by any reasonable standard.  It would be like me suggesting that your opinion is invalid because you are a demon spawn from the eighth level of Hell sent here to cause confusion and chaos.  By your line of reasoning I can make this assumption and line of argument because you have never denied being such.  And when you do deny it now I will just come up with something else to accuse you of that you have not denied ever being which would shed doubt on your opinions and motives thus putting you in an impossible and infinite loop.

Is this really how you want to discuss and debate?  I should hope not.



Rob said:


> Probably everyone here then, or most.



They had better.



Rob said:


> Well, I think films are a poor way of finding out about those things, and any suggestion that I'm being snotty is pure bullshit. It's simply, as you concede, that:



You can think they are.  That is your right.  But again, that doesn't make it so.  The basics of story telling such as plot and character development as well as dialogue are essentially the same.  The only thing, and I reiterate this, that is different is that scenes and character reactions are generally shown and not described.  However anyone with a rudimentary understanding of English can indeed describe what was shown.



Rob said:


> Precisely this. It's done in a different manner. The mechanism is different. That difference matters. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen people start talking about films in a thread about writing. I can see the temptation, because most of us have seen a large number of films, they only take an investment of a couple of hours or so, and it's relatively easy to come up with examples. But typically those people [a] can't make their points in writing terms and * can't name any novels that could be used as examples, and [c] can't demonstrate the ability to apply what they're talking about in their writing. The last is not surprising, because putting words down on a page to achieve an effect is not easily gained from watching something on-screen.*


*

The reason films are discussed and are valid points of discussion are because they start from written screenplays.  The mechanism is not entirely different other than it is more visual than a novel.  But anyone reading a book visualizes in their head what they are reading so it is also visual.  The difference comes in the fact that someone else is interpreting the information and presenting it for you when you watch a movie.  Some people just do not get this however and I think they are sorely missing out when it comes to exploring all the media of story telling that are out there and that can help them become better writers.



Rob said:



			Not always. Sometimes events are reported. There is a parallel here with the way things are either shown directly (what Sol Stein calls immediate scene in Solutions for Writers) or reported in a novel.
		
Click to expand...


You are misinterpretting my use of the word shown.  It is meant as the scene is being shown to the viewer from the director's point of view and style of which the use of reporting by characters within the story is part of.



Rob said:



			Both of those statements are true, but everything I've seen suggests to me that learning how to write by watching movies is a poor and unnecessarily limiting choice, and that a much better way to learn is to read plenty. Nothing snotty about that.
		
Click to expand...


Again, anectodal evidence.  Not a statement of fact.  Just an opinion.  To counter that, I will inform you that I am currently in a writer's group where one of the young ladies reads nothing in terms books.  Her reading list includes news papers and fashion magazines.  Yet her short stories are some of the absolute best I have ever read.  The novel she is working on isn't half bad either.  If she gets a fair shot I think she will have a very successful career as a writer.  And I hate romance which is what she writes.*


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

but like Rob said, the OP was obviously implying that they never read ANY substantial literature, be it short-stories novels or whatever and that is the point you missed when you started talking about how a good writer can glean everything they need from short stories and not novels. the OP does NOT read ANYTHING besides from 'pieces' of novels and pieces about novels. that is the situation we are discussing here. it's not short-stories vs novels. that's an entirely different question. and no it's not assumption. we know the OP doesn't read any substantial literature because, guess what, they took the time to tell us exactly what they did use as source material (the internet, television, movies and those 'pieces' of books) and they didn't mention short stories. if they were some voracious reader of short stories they would've mentioned them already. but they did not and therefore you harping on about how short stories are great source material (which i don't disagree with by the way, they're as good as novels for studying writing, particularly if you wish to be a short story writer) is, as riveting as it is, utterly irrelevant to the subject of this thread which is not 'which is more useful source material, short stories or novels?' but 'is it wrong for me to be a writer?' i have tried to answer the OP's question based on the situation as described. you have not. all i've said is that you can write as much as you want, but you will absolutely not be a good writer if you don't read. period. i never said it had to be novels, but it does need to be writing and FULL PIECES of writing. not television, not the internet, not movies. i don't understand how anybody who claims to be a writer can argue with that one.

rob is completely correct when he says movies are a poor way to learn about writing. that's not to say they shouldn't be used at all, i already said they're a useful point of reference, particularly when considering visualization of a scene. however, anyone who thinks they can learn everything there is to know by using films is a complete fool. for one thing, films in general are wholly reliant on the visual and auditory aspects of fiction. you can watch 'Pirates of the Caribbean' a hundred times but it will never give you, as a viewer, any concept of the smell of being on a ship or the way it feels to be stabbed with a cutlass or anything except a physical interpretation. only by reading books can we explore these things. and what about description? it's all very well to say 'describe a scene' but if you only know movies how are you to know how to do that with any real effect? see the sky in a movie and all you'll see is a sky (unless brad pitt or whoever happens to make some snappy comment about the sky, i guess). but read about the sky in a book by a writer who knows how to explain something as complicated and beautiful as the sky and, god, you can see so much more than just that.

the bottom line: there are some ways of doing things that are just better than others. and reading just is a better way to learn how to write than anything you or the OP mentioned. it's not that i'm arrogant and expect anyone to just believe that, it's that it's a fact attested to by thousands of years of literary development. you have to read to be a good writer. so, that being understood and, assuming the OP wishes to be a good writer and just not some bullsh*t fanfic writer or stephanie meyer clone (once again, if the OP just wants to write for fun then all this is irrelevant),  i now invite you to withdraw your nonsense about 'absotively posolutely' going for it. because it wont happen.


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> You missed the link because you don't want to see it.


Ah, I didn't realise that was my problem. Thanks.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> You missed the link because you don't want to see it.





Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Best you learn that less you look foolish.




wow, mathias. for a guy who goes around calling people 'snotty' you sure know how to sound pretentious. so how is life being unplugged from the matrix? do give my regards to morpheus.


----------



## srebak (Dec 29, 2011)

1. I'm not saying i don't read, i do (vaguely) remember hearing the words in some books and reading parts of others. I'm just saying i've never really read an entire chapter book from beginning to end. I have read though, I've read a few Dr. Seuss books and a few other shorter books. It's just that once i've gotten the jist of some stories via movies or television, actually reading the books just seems, i don't know, redundant.

2. Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 29, 2011)

as i said, it depends on what kind of 'famous writer' you want to be. if you want to be a published novelist/short story writer with widespread critical acclaim, then most likely not. writing is not something you can just pick up and run with. if, say, you wanted to write for a very niche audience who don't generally mind if the standard of writing is basic, for example children's books then you'll have a better chance than, say, if you want to write a 300 page crime thriller novel. it's definitely possible to be a 'famous writer' without being a 'good writer'. the point we've been debating on here is whether it's possible to be a good writer without reading an entire book. the answer is it's possible, but so horrendously difficult that the odds will always be stacked against you much higher than they would be otherwise. but it's not for anyone on here to tell you 'yes' or 'no'. like i suggested, try it, but don't be surprised if it doesn't work out. honestly i would be very surprised if it did.

if you don't mind me asking, why do you want to be a writer?


----------



## Rob (Dec 29, 2011)

srebak said:


> 2. Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?


Whether you read books or whether you don't, no-one can tell you whether or not you'll ever be a famous writer.


----------



## srebak (Dec 29, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> as i said, it depends on what kind of 'famous writer' you want to be. if you want to be a published novelist/short story writer with widespread critical acclaim, then most likely not. writing is not something you can just pick up and run with. if, say, you wanted to write for a very niche audience who don't generally mind if the standard of writing is basic, for example children's books then you'll have a better chance than, say, if you want to write a 300 page crime thriller novel. it's definitely possible to be a 'famous writer' without being a 'good writer'. the point we've been debating on here is whether it's possible to be a good writer without reading an entire book. the answer is it's possible, but so horrendously difficult that the odds will always be stacked against you much higher than they would be otherwise. but it's not for anyone on here to tell you 'yes' or 'no'. like i suggested, try it, but don't be surprised if it doesn't work out. honestly i would be very surprised if it did.
> 
> if you don't mind me asking, why do you want to be a writer?



The real reason i made this thread was because i thought about it and i felt i should ask someone. Though Personally, i think my stories are pretty done pretty well for someone who's never actually read "Harry Potter" or "Lord of the Rings"

As to your other question, i wanted to be a writer because I once began writing stories for no particular reason and soon, writing just felt right for me.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 29, 2011)

Rob said:


> Whether you read books or whether you don't, no-one can tell you whether or not you'll ever be a famous writer.


True. However, if you don't enjoy reading you'd better be prepared to pay others to do a lot of the work.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 29, 2011)

Hi srebak,

I've read the Chapters you have posted on these forums, and it's clear to me that you need to read some full-length published fiction, if it is your hope to write the same. You have a good imagination and a natural storytelling style, but your inexperience with reading is apparent in your writing.

Reading doesn't have to be a chore. If you find a story you like, it can be more fun than watching a movie. Every Pulitzer Prize winning author I've seen -- every single one -- attests to being a voracious reader. These are writers who have attained high literary honors.

If 100% of the award-winning writers of the modern age proclaim to being active readers, wouldn't you agree it logical to conclude their reading played a part in their success?

Reading the works of other authors can inspire you in your own attempts to share your creativity, your style, and your unique perspective of the world.

The more quality fiction you read, the better you will understand the craft of quality fiction itself, through exposure alone. If you feel inclined to do so, active reading, as opposed to passive reading, can gleam even more insights into the art; reading studiously to analyze and interpret the techniques used by the writer can improve your own approach to writing tremendously.

You can choose to ignore the majority of advice in this thread, and continue writing without reading. I personally hope that, at some point in your life, you will discover both the joy, and the benefit, of reading good fiction. Why not start now?


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 29, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> wow, mathias. for a guy who goes around calling people 'snotty' you sure know how to sound pretentious. so how is life being unplugged from the matrix? do give my regards to morpheus.



I've been thinking myself that mathias certainly has the definition of 'snotty' down pat...


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 29, 2011)

It sounds to me that Mathias is so vehemently defending the "you don't need to read novels" argument because he himself doesn't read them. I could be mistaken, though.

Reading short stories is an decent alternative, in my opinion. But if a person aspires to write novels, it's obvious that reading novels would be the best source of insight. Any argument to the contrary is merely an exercise in rhetoric.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 29, 2011)

Reading can be a big time-waster. It takes several hours to read a novel. You can watch the movie in an hour and half or so. Then you can spend the extra time you saved practicing your writing. At the end of the day -- or really, any time of the day -- it’s probably going to be wash.

PS -- I'm really disappointed by the lack of awesome analogies in this thread. I'll get things going: An author who tries to write a novel without having read one would be like a gourmet chef who has only eaten at McDonald's. Or it would be like a bald hair stylist. Well, maybe not. But you get the idea.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> but like Rob said, the OP was obviously implying that they never read ANY substantial literature, be it short-stories novels or whatever and that is the point you missed when you started talking about how a good writer can glean everything they need from short stories and not novels. the OP does NOT read ANYTHING besides from 'pieces' of novels and pieces about novels.



This is not what the original poster said.  It is what you want to beleive he/she said in order to conjecture why you might be right.

Anyways, you are proven wrong.



srebak said:


> 1. I'm not saying i don't read, i do (vaguely) remember hearing the words in some books and reading parts of others. I'm just saying i've never really read an entire chapter book from beginning to end. I have read though, I've read a few Dr. Seuss books and a few other shorter books. It's just that once i've gotten the jist of some stories via movies or television, actually reading the books just seems, i don't know, redundant



That's what happens when you assume.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> wow, mathias. for a guy who goes around calling people 'snotty' you sure know how to sound pretentious. so how is life being unplugged from the matrix? do give my regards to morpheus.



Wow, great way to respond from someone who constructed an entire argument based on a now disproven premise.  Someone's unplugged alright.  It's you.

I'll take an appology any time you want to give it.  You don't seem like the sort to say you were wrong though.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> It sounds to me that Mathias is so vehemently defending the "you don't need to read novels" argument because he himself doesn't read them. I could be mistaken, though.
> 
> Reading short stories is an decent alternative, in my opinion. But if a person aspires to write novels, it's obvious that reading novels would be the best source of insight. Any argument to the contrary is merely an exercise in rhetoric.



It is apparent that there are some people who just don't know how to deal with the fact that there is no right way to become a good writer.  Just like the arrogant people who think you cannot be any good as a dancer if you didnt go to Julliard or your college degree is worthless if it didn't come from Harvard or Yale those who think that you must read certain things to write certain things are in the same category.

Of course you a wrong about my reading habits.  But you won't let that cloud the facts of the matter right?

Talk about an excercise in rhetoric.  You did just that.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

shadowwalker said:


> I've been thinking myself that mathias certainly has the definition of 'snotty' down pat...



Since I am not promoting any way in particular of becoming a writer, and thus not promoting the superiority of any position but suggesting different strokes for different folks, it would be impossible for me to be considered 'snotty'.

Whereas clearly people making baseless assumptions in order to form and argument that they want to be true are certainly being spiteful or "petty ill will or hatred with the disposition to irritate, annoy, or thwart"  Of course those acting as such will not likely see themselves as so.


----------



## Foxee (Dec 30, 2011)

*Of course, people who decide to start a flamewar will soon be enjoying a mandatory time-out from the forums if they continue this line of discussion. Back to the OP, people.*


----------



## Rob (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias, would you mind listing some of the successful novelists you know of who made it without reading novels?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> It is apparent that there are some people who just don't know how to deal with the fact that there is no right way to become a good writer.


Nobody on this thread (that I have seen, though I admit I haven't read all the responses) has mentioned anything about "the right way to become a good writer". The proposed viewpoint, that you seem to disagree with, is that reading novels is beneficial to anyone seeking to write novels.



			
				Mathias Cavanaugh said:
			
		

> Just like the arrogant people who think you cannot be any good as a dancer if you didnt go to Julliard


That's simply a weak comparison. More accurate to this thread would be "you cannot be a good ballet dancer if you've never seen somebody ballet".

Even still, the advice given here by others has not been in absolutes of "can or cannot", but rather, "it would help if you.." and "you'd be at a disadvantage if you didn't..."



			
				Mathias Cavanaugh said:
			
		

> or your college degree is worthless if it didn't come from Harvard or Yale


Not even sure why you think this relates to the thread at all.



			
				Mathias Cavanaugh said:
			
		

> those who think that you must read certain things to write certain things are in the same category.


What category is that? So far you have used one dubious statement, a weak comparison, and another comparison which was irrelevant.. Your category of "those" is as of yet, undefined.

However, I believe you're saying the proponents of novel-reading are arrogant and presumptuous. Is that an accurate reflection of your argument?



			
				Mathias Cavanaugh said:
			
		

> Of course you a wrong about my reading habits.


I admitted as much. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, considering it as a possibility to explain your hostility, but clearly I was mistaken.



> But you won't let that cloud the facts of the matter right?


Oh look! Sarcasm. Excellent.



			
				KyleColorado said:
			
		

> Reading short stories is an decent alternative, in my opinion. But if a person aspires to write novels, it's obvious that reading novels would be the best source of insight. Any argument to the contrary is merely an exercise in rhetoric.





			
				Mathias Cavanaugh said:
			
		

> Talk about an excercise in rhetoric.  You did just that.



Did I? What better source of insight into writing novels would there be? Which part of my statement do you consider false?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 30, 2011)

So.. I read through your posts again, Mathias, to try to see your perspective.. correct me if I'm wrong:

You're asserting that storytelling, and the techniques used to do so, can be learned from various different sources (including films, television, and short-stories), and those of us arguing that it's necessary to read novels (in order to write novels) are misrepresenting personal preference as fact.

I think it's a fair argument. And you presented it well.

But, to be honest, your exuberance in attacking the statements of others (along with the sarcasm used to do so) seemed a bit --to reuse a word from earlier-- hostile, at least to me. It's an entertaining thread now, that's for sure, and an impressive display of wit and debate skills.. but I see no reason for us to be attacking eachother when we're all here due to a common interest.

So, feel free to relatiate against my previous post. I expect nothing less, actually, as fair is fair, and I'm looking forward to it, because while I disagree with you, you do present interesting arguments that make me reconsider my own.

But there are no villains here. (at least, not that I know of)... so no need to draw swords.

Cheers


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rob said:


> Mathias, would you mind listing some of the successful novelists you know of who made it without reading novels?



I would like to point out what the OP actually said because I think it is being lost once again in search of attempting to argue something not what was orginally asked.

"Is it wrong for me to try to be an author if i've never read a full chapter book? Thanks to the internet and occassionally TV and Movies, i've managed to get a certain amount of information about certain books and the authors that wrote them. I know about the books written by R.L. Stine and J.R.R. Tolkien but i've never actually read them. I have read parts of the Redwall books but i got most of my information about them from either looking online or watching the TV adaptation. Is it wrong to try and be a writer myself?"

Note he is not talking about being a "novelist". Just a writer in general. Thus your question is a bit leading and directed down the wrong path. Perhaps intentionally; perhaps not. Your question presumes that the reading lists of all "successful" novelists are available. If you know where to find this information to prove your obvious point which is that successful novelists always read novels then please post a link so that you can back up your assumption. I personally know of no such database of information. And I certainly would not want to be in the possition of defending such a stunning and wide ranging absolute without serious and well documented sources to prove it and making it only the second absolute ever proven to exist in the known universe. The first of course is the absolute that there are no absolutes other than there are no absolutes.

Here is what the argument boils down to. As you previously said, implied or whatever you want to call it, you don't think it is possible to be a good writer without reading novels because that is your experience. My experience differs as I know at least one writer would I think is quite good without doing such. I call her sucessful despite being unpublished because she writes good stories. Thus I say otherwise. Now, define successful. As I said, I define "successful" author someone who succeeds in writing a good story that people who read it agree is a good story.

Or is a "successful" you your mind an author someone who manages to wade through the masses of trasncripts submitted every year to become published? Or is a "successful" author someone who not only gets published but gets published by a certain prestigious publishing house? Or is a "successful" author someone that sells an arbitrary number, call it X, of books? On the last one, what about the author who writes well but writes in a feild or genre with a very narrow audience that cannot hope to sell whatever arbitrary X number of books you choose?

Again, I tend to say that a writer is a success if they write a good story worth reading. Sometimes I have to wade through the backwaters of the internet to find them. Most writers I know don't write for fame or fortune. Of course if such things were to come their way I doubt they would turn their noses up and shun them. Now, if you think that success only means being formally published, or something else beyond that then that is your right. Just like it is your right to think that what I think is a great story is really tawdry garbage and visa versa.

Example to this point, and I appologize in advance if there are any LoTR fans here, but I find Tolkien's series only a fair work of fiction because of its hackneyed nature. Now, when I say that, LoTR fans usually jump down my throat because they think the series is God's gift to fantasy literature. But that is because, in my opinion, Tolkien was their first exposure to many of the concepts and mythos that were within it. When I, on the other hand, first read LoTR I had already been well versed in Arthurian Legend, Nordic mythology, and many other things that were clearly the root of every, and I do mean painstakenly every, scene and scenario within the story to the point where I could not look past those roots. The characters were different. The conversations were changed. But I see the entire story as nothing more than a thinly veiled mashup and retelling of well established stories and sagas into a new story. Do I consider Tolkien successful? If you consider selling millions of books successful then yes. But I think he fell short, way short, of telling what I would consider a successful story from the standpoint that what he did was not of that much of interest to me as someone who had read basically everything that he obviously used as his own basis and found the oringinals more compelling.

Sure I know gal who I think is a successful author is unpublished. But that does not mean she is not any good. I think most people can agree that a lot of junk gets published every year. If you don't then all I can surmise is that you have lower standards. Also anyone who has been in the writing field for a while, and I stress that I have been although in a different field under my real name so I have oodles of experience writting and being published, has seen excellent works be passed over time and again and never get published or at the very least take a long time to get the recognition they deserve.

So in conclusion I say again, if you want to prove that successful writers must read novels then first accurately define what that means and then produce the reading lists of all successful authors to prove it. The floor is yours.  Defend your absolute.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

KyleColorado said:


> So.. I read through your posts again, Mathias, to try to see your perspective.. correct me if I'm wrong:
> 
> You're asserting that storytelling, and the techniques used to do so, can be learned from various different sources (including films, television, and short-stories), and those of us arguing that it's necessary to read novels (in order to write novels) are misrepresenting personal preference as fact.
> 
> ...



I attacked no one.  I gave my opinion that in gerneral anyone who thinks that you must do X to be a writer was exhibiting a conceited attitude and warned about absolutes for they are bad things to promote.  I made this because the OP originally asked if he/she must read a certain thing in order to be a writer.

I made that statement because, like you, I did not think that anyone was saying you must read to write.  Although some people did stress that the OP might, depending on his/her raw tallent level, would potentially be at a disservice by not doing so.  I never disagreed with that.  If no one here was supporting the stance that  X must be done to be a writer then there should have been no offense taken by anyone.  Of course it turns out that some people do think you must do X to be a writer took offense to that and then started attacking me.

I defeded my statements.  And in the course of defending those statements I think we have learned what some people really think.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> So in conclusion I say again, if you want to prove that successful writers must read novels then first accurately define what that means and then produce the reading lists of all successful authors to prove it. The floor is yours.  Defend your absolute.



Every successful author states reading as one of the things they do.  You can go through hundreds of authors, listing all of their favourite books.  You show us any successful author who states otherwise.  Just one successful author will do.  I'll make it easy, just one successful author even going back 60 years.  It shouldn't be too difficult.

We have quotes in this very thread originating from famous people, yet not one single piece of evidence to contradict that.  Sorry, but I think the ball's in your court to disprove it.


----------



## Rob (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias, just name some of them.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 30, 2011)

mod - i don't mean to flame mathias or anybody. i apologize if it came across that way. i was merely responding to him calling me et al 'snotty', which is an attack he instigated. the fact is it is about the OP and i don't think mr. cavanaugh is correctly understanding the responses of others who disagree with him.

mathias - nobody is suggesting for a moment that 'other sources' - movies, tv, etc - are irrelevant to the development of writing. moreover, i (i don't think anyone else did either, but certainly not me) didn't even say one had to read novels. indeed, if one chooses to be a short story writer then one should absolutely focus on reading short stories, a screenwriter then one should read scripts, and so on. it's not a question of novel's being important, that is not the question. you say i am proved wrong about my premise, but actually i'm not. if you take the time to read the kind of fiction the OP has posted on here you will see that he (it is a he) is actually aspiring to write a novel. i know this because he has posted 'chapters' of it. and, guess what? in the thread where he posted those 'chapters' almost everyone who commented on the work said they could tell by reading it that he needed to study writing better and needed to read more. coincidence eh? so, actually, we are dealing with an aspiring novelist here. and one who actually should be reading novels. so, assumption or not, i was correct in recommending he do that. 

i know you like to play devil's advocate, but let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right and the OP manages to write a full-length, completed novel of 50,000+ words. how the hell is he going to edit it if he doesn't read full books? how is he going to know correct grammar, syntax, tenses? how will he redraft the thing? i'm sorry, but assumptions aside and in the cold light of day it just doesn't seem a realistic proposition to anyone with any experience of the actual process. i never said the OP couldn't try, i just said he should be aware that he is facing one hell of a challenge, based on his inherent lack of necessary skills, skills he would learn very quickly through reading (and reading more than the occasional dr seuss. as fine as dr. seuss is, i don't think it's enough. and i don't think many published writers would say it was either). it is nothing like saying a college degree means nothing if it wasn't from harvard or yale. that's a plain stupid comparison. for one thing, the majority of respected academics DON'T go to harvard or yale. if you're talking world-wide, in fact, through history most of the finest academic minds have gone to other colleges - oxford or cambridge in the UK, Moscow or St Petersburg in the USSR/Russia, Zurich in switzerland, etc. on the other hand, the majority (and most likely, the entirety) of respected writers DO read books. all kinds of books, but books for sure. the issue is not the kind of text read but the lack of reading in general. what it is like saying is that a college degree means nothing if you don't go to college/sit an exam/do any course-work. and, guess what, that's true.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> Every successful author states reading as one of the things they do. You can go through hundreds of authors, listing all of their favourite books. You show us any successful author who states otherwise. Just one successful author will do. I'll make it easy, just one successful author even going back 60 years. It shouldn't be too difficult.
> 
> We have quotes in this very thread originating from famous people, yet not one single piece of evidence to contradict that. Sorry, but I think the ball's in your court to disprove it.



You make the statement that "Every successful author states reading as one of the things they do."

I want to point you BACK to what the OP oringally said and what he/she said later.

First, the OP said that he/she did not read a specific type of work; "full chapter book"s. She/she never said he/she did not read! This was a bad assumption made by several other people in this thread which has been proven false by the OP's followup in which he/she admits to actually *GASP* reading.

As to your second point I ask that you prove the statement "Every successful author states reading as one of the things they do." This is a wholly unprovable premise. Do you have quotes from "every successful author" to actually prove this point? And on a more direct note, I don't know if anyone here said that authors don't or shouldn't read. At issue is what they should read. So that would be a red herring of the brightest red. You are just looking for an easy out. If you are going to make the statement you must back it up. It is not up to me to provide your evidence for you.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rob said:


> Mathias, just name some of them.



Got that list yet?


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> mathias - nobody is suggesting for a moment that 'other sources' - movies, tv, etc - are irrelevant to the development of writing. moreover, i (i don't think anyone else did either, but certainly not me) didn't even say one had to read novels. indeed, if one chooses to be a short story writer then one should absolutely focus on reading short stories, a screenwriter then one should read scripts, and so on. it's not a question of novel's being important, that is not the question. you say i am proved wrong about my premise, but actually i'm not. if you take the time to read the kind of fiction the OP has posted on here you will see that he (it is a he) is actually aspiring to write a novel. i know this because he has posted 'chapters' of it. and, guess what? in the thread where he posted those 'chapters' almost everyone who commented on the work said they could tell by reading it that he needed to study writing better and needed to read more. coincidence eh? so, actually, we are dealing with an aspiring novelist here. and one who actually should be reading novels. so, assumption or not, i was correct in recommending he do that.



If your premise were true then no one should have taken offense to my original statement.  Yet here we are.  People obviously took offense at it because they believe that to do X you must do Y and took the response as being directed at them personally and an attack on them.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> As to your second point I ask that you prove the statement "Every successful author states reading as one of the things they do."  This is a wholly unprovable premise.  Do you have quotes from "every successful author" to actually prove this point?  And on a more direct note, I don't know if anyone here said that authors don't or shouldn't.  At issue is what they should read.  So that would be a red herring of the brightest red.  You are just looking for an easy out.  If you are going to make the statement you must back it up.  It is not up to me to provide your evidence for you.



There only appears to be one person seeking easy ways out in this discussion to my eyes.

Fact is that we have quotes attributed to famous people saying these things, yet not a single piece of evidence to contradict these claims.  That's pretty good conclusive evidence for me.  You may wish to argue nahnahnahnah, but I'm simply making my conclusions based on actual evidence provided.  You wish to argue your case without any evidence whatsoever?  Sorry, it doesn't work that way; and 'prove there's no life in the universe' arguments doesn't wash.

Unless you provide any evidence to contradict the evidence supplied by others, there's only one conclusion that can be made.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> There's only one person seeking easy ways out and shifting goalposts in this discussion.
> 
> Fact is that we have quotes attributed to famous people saying these things, yet not a single piece of evidence to contradict these claims. That's pretty good conclusive evidence for me. You may wish to argue nahnahnahnah, but I'm simply making my conclusions based on actual evidence provided. You wish to argue your case without any evidence whatsoever? Sorry, it doesn't work that way; and 'prove there's no life in the universe' arguments doesn't wash.
> 
> Unless you provide any evidence to contradict the evidence supplied by others, there's only one conclusion that can be made.



Of course it's good enough for you.  You don't demand actual proof.  You just demand that your ideology be considered valid and seek to attack anyone that dares infringe upon it.

You want an admission by an author that they don't read or read very much?  Try Umberto Eco, if you know who he is.  "You know, I don't read, I write." (Umberto Eco: 'I'm a writer not a reader' | Books | The Guardian)  It took me 5 seconds on the internet to turn this up.  And anyone interested in the truth could have found it and said, "Oh, maybe my oringially theory is wrong that to be a writer you have to read."

That doesn't mean he never reads.  Just like the original author did not say he/she did not read.  And I never said that one should not read either.  It does say though that as a "successful" author he doesn't put a lot of stock in the "I have to read X to write X" philosophy some people are pimping here.

Now, like I said before, ball is in your court.  And Rob's too.  I wonder now that the absolute has been shattered what will you come up with next to promote the absolute?


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> You want an admission by an author that they don't read or read very much?  Try Umberto Eco, if you know who he is.  "You know, I don't read, I write." (Umberto Eco: 'I'm a writer not a reader' | Books | The Guardian)  It took me 5 seconds on the internet to turn this up.  And anyone interested in the truth could have found it and said, "Oh, maybe my oringially theory is wrong that to be a writer you have to read."
> 
> Now, like I said before, ball is in your court. And Rob's too. I wonder now that the absolute has been shattered what will you come up with next to promote the absolute?



He's read War and Peace.
But more importantly, he used to be a literary critic.  Now I'm not quite sure what that job entails, but I'm pretty sure it involves an awful lot of... what would it be I wonder... could it be... reading of literary material?  It is.

He might say he doesn't read much these days (simply to [as he puts it] shut people up), however he's done an awful lot of reading in his 79 cranky years on our planet.

Sorry, no world shattering, try again.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> He's read War and Peace.
> But more importantly, he used to be a literary critic. Now I'm not quite sure what that job entails, but I'm pretty sure it involves an awful lot of... what would it be I wonder... could it be... reading of literary material? It is.
> 
> He might say he doesn't read much these days (simply to [as he puts it] shut people up), however he's done an awful lot of reading in his 79 cranky years on our planet.
> ...



Again, the OP never said he/she did not read in general.  I never said one should not read in general.  The ORIGINAL topic of this thread however was that does one need to read a certain type of material in order to write.  That has since devolved into the wierd concept that one must read a certain thing to write a certain thing and that some mysterious consorsium of "successful" authors which is beyond reproach and disagreement promotes this concept as words from on high.  It is an unprovable premise as it is an absolute.

You wanted an an admission from an author that they don't take the aspect of reading as meaning that much to writing and I gave you one.  You can chose to ignore it.  But the facts still remain.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 30, 2011)

Umberto Eco: 'People are tired of simple things. They want to be challenged' | Books | The Guardian

Quote : "He has adored books since he was a child, growing up in the town of Alessandria in northern Italy with not very bookish "petit bourgeois" parents but a grandmother who loved reading. He read voraciously and still does. His two libraries, at the homes he shares with his German-born wife Renate Ramge in Milan and Rimini, contain 50,000 books, including 1,200 rare titles."
unquote

Yes the facts do remain.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 30, 2011)

wow, umberto eco? that's a real literary powerhouse you unearthed there, mathias!

i'm just kidding, that's fine. i actually used to live in europe so i do know who he is. he's an italian literary academic who wrote 'the name of the rose'. if he said the quote you attribute to him, then that's all very fascinating but it doesn't mean much. for one thing, note the use of present tense in that quote. i DON'T read, i WRITE. that rather suggests he doesn't read so much now because he uses that time to write, which is rather along the same lines as what i said in an earlier post - that when you're at a point where you have read enough to understand literature and feel, with good reason, able to invest more of your time in writing than reading, then you needn't feel bad about reading less than you perhaps used to. i'm quite sure, in fact i am positive, that he would be quite offended that you were using that quote to reinforce the ridiculous hypothesis that minimal reading is required to be a good writer. i'm quite sure eco has read a great deal in the past. in fact, it would be quite impossible to be a 'literary theorist' if he didn't. he's probably spent much of his life doing just that and the point of that quote is to say that he doesn't read so much currently because he chooses to focus his time on writing. which is a completely different scenario to that of the OP in this thread who, by the way, is 19, unpublished and in a completely different point in their career to the writer you just cited. the example you gave said nothing about 'not putting a lot of stock' in the 'i have to read x to write x' philosophy. and, once again, please don't misconstrue what people are saying. there IS no 'x'. you don't have to read 'x' to write 'x'. i write mainly horror, but i also write romances. i have never read 'a romance'. why? i don't feel i need to. i read plenty of other kinds of books to know how to write 'a book', and the romantic aspects i need i derive from my own life and memory. you're rather tampering with other people's positions by adding the 'x' factor.

in any case, you were asked to name a famous author who says reading is unimportant to being a good writer. here is a list of quotes by world-renowned authors who say just the opposite:

A good style simply doesn’t form unless you absorb half a dozen topflight authors every
year


F Scott Fitzgerald



One ought, everyday, to hear a song, read a fine poem, and, if possible, to speak a few
reasonable words


Johann Wolfgang von Goeth

The greatest part of a writer’s time is spent reading in order to write; a man will turn 
over half a library in order to make one book.

Samuel Johnson

If you don't have time to read, you don't have time to write.

Stephen King


Books…if you’re going to be anything, they are vital in life.


Roald Dahl


Writers must read and read some more, so that your bloodstream is charged by the
alcohol of fiction and you come, at last, to feel and see and believe in the visions that fill
your head.


Hallie and Whit Burnett

There are many rules of good writing, but the best way to find them is to be a good 
reader.


Stephen Ambrose


It is only by introducing the young to great literature, drama and music, and to the
excitement of great science that we open to them the possibilities that lie within the
human spirit -- enable them to see visions and dream dreams. 


Eric Anderson

The world may be full of fourth-rate writers, but it is also full of fourth-rate readers.

Reading maketh a full man; conference, a ready man; and writing, an exact man.


Francis Bacon

Stan Barstow


A library, to modify the famous metaphor of Socrates, should be the delivery room for the
birth of ideas-a place where history comes to life. 

Norman Cousins


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rustgold said:


> Umberto Eco: 'People are tired of simple things. They want to be challenged' | Books | The Guardian
> 
> Quote : "He has adored books since he was a child, growing up in the town of Alessandria in northern Italy with not very bookish "petit bourgeois" parents but a grandmother who loved reading. He read voraciously and still does. His two libraries, at the homes he shares with his German-born wife Renate Ramge in Milan and Rimini, contain 50,000 books, including 1,200 rare titles."
> unquote
> ...



Again, this was cited to debunk the myth that authors (all successful ones) promote reading as necessary to their success.  The quote, in my opinion, shows that he is indeed one that does not promite this this.  Note also that it says he still reads but not what he still reads or if it has anything to do with what he writes about.  And no doubt he does still read a lot.  He writes a lot of what some would call (but not I) schollarly works which he needs basic information on.  However, pulling facts from other paper and books in order to write about them is not in the same category as reading a novel to learn how to write one in my opinion.

I stand by all my previous statements.  If you chose to disagree with them, chose to take them out of context or continue to banter about unprovable absolutes that you want to believe in so baddly then go ahead and do such.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 30, 2011)

you just made up the bit about 'promoting'. it's not about whether novelists 'promote' reading (although it seems evident the overwhelming majority do) but rather whether substantial reading is necessary to produce a good writer. so far, you have failed to demonstrate the contrary. in any case, eco says nothing about whether one should or should not read so he doesn't even 'promote' his own position (or, more accurately, the position you attribute to him). 

the point still stands. there is NOT A SINGLE serious, published author in the WHOLE HISTORY OF MODERN LITERATURE (i say modern because i can think of pre-enlightenment examples who that might possibly apply to, just in case you decide to go there...) who ever got anywhere never having read a substantial body of written material. and by that i mean not just dr. seuss. there's none, zip, nada. and until you produce a single example to the contrary then i'm going to consider the case closed.


----------



## JosephB (Dec 30, 2011)

Back to the OP:

I really can’t imagine why anyone who aspires to write wouldn’t want to make the effort to read something so he can get an idea of how it’s done. The question would be, why NOT read?

Do yourself a favor and take some of the time you’d normally spend sitting in front of your computer or the tube and pick up a book. You just might absorb a thing or two that will make it a lot easier for you in the long run. You’re just shooting yourself in the foot if you don't. Otherwise, you can safely ignore most of this thread beyond the first page if you simply apply a little common sense to this.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

Rob said:


> Mathias, just name some of them.



Still waiting on that list of all authors and their reading lists.  Got it yet?  Nope?  We can wait.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Dec 30, 2011)

luckyscars said:


> the point still stands. there is NOT A SINGLE serious, published author in the WHOLE HISTORY OF MODERN LITERATURE (i say modern because i can think of pre-enlightenment examples who that might possibly apply to, just in case you decide to go there...) who ever got anywhere never having read a substantial body of written material. and by that i mean not just dr. seuss. there's none, zip, nada. and until you produce a single example to the contrary then i'm going to consider the case closed.



See, there you go again, making a claim that was never made and then trying to swat it down (i.e. a strawman).  You say that no author gets anywhere without "having read a substantial body of written material".  Yet that was not the original point of this thread.  I have to keep bringing that up because for some reason some people here seem to want to ignore that the OP mentioned a specific type of "written material" only that was not particularly on his/her reading list then even later on came back to say that he/she did in fact read.  In fact I even suggest other types of reading material for the OP if large novels where not his/her thing.

Moving on ... as soon as you provide some imperical evidence for that opinion it will be cased closed.  Since your statement is all inclusive, you must provide all inclusive evidence.  That will be a long list and a lot of leg work but as soon as you compile that list I will be happy to review it and see if I have any further comments.  Until then however all that is being bantered about is a claim which has no real evidence to back it up and honestly I don't see you or others here progressing this conversation; just getting it stuck in a circular loop with claims of absolutes that must magically be true it seems.

Occam's Razor applies here.  When dealing with two competing theories to explain something, the one that draws the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one.  So, which theory has less assumptions?  That ALL authors in "the WHOLE HISTORY OF MODERN LITERATURE" followed a single, steadfast rule to learning how to becoming great authors (ie. reading what someone else thoght they should read).  Or that authors follow their own paths to success?

I say, knowing human beings as the notoriously independent creatures they are the second applies with the fewest assumptions.  To believe in the first requires one to assume to many coercions of too many people to fit them into a specific box and the statistical probabilities of that being true alone would render it impossible.  You can disagree.  That is your right.


----------



## Rustgold (Dec 30, 2011)

Mathias Cavanaugh said:


> Still waiting on that list of all authors and their reading lists.  Got it yet?  Nope?  We can wait.



Funny thing is that the very author who you tried to use for your case turned out to read voraciously, had read War & Peace, and has a collection of 50,000 books.

All you've been able to do in this thread is to use the 'prove there's no life in the universe' argument.  Sorry, but that type of argument is a fail.


----------



## srebak (Jan 2, 2012)

*1.* I'll be frank, i'm not sure why i write. Sure, part of me is probably doing it for the kind of fame J.K. Rowling, HCA, Mary Shelley and Roald Dahl all have. But at the same time, i think this is just what i want to do with my life

*2.* Maybe it's just my ego or just my need to get this out of the way, but i still think that my book writing skills are rather good for someone who hasn't read a full chapter book from beginning to end

*3. *The real reason i made this thread was because i saw the new J.R.R. Tolkien video on Brainpop and watching it got me thinking of this topic

*4.* As i said, it's not that i don't read, i just haven't read a full chapter book from beginning to end, consecutively.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 2, 2012)

An aspiring novelist who doesn't read novels would be like a shipbuilder who never went on board a ship, or a painter who never looked at other painter's work, or a surgeon who never observed an operation.

Yes, someone who is sufficiently motivated could string together 60,000 words or so, organize them into chapters and call the product a novel.  But, with no experience in how a novel is structured, plotted, paced and populated with interesting characters, what results would you expect to get?  Writing is as much craft as art, and crafts are learned through study, imitation, and practice.  If you can't muster the self discipline to finish reading a book, how can you expect to finish writing one?  It is much harder to "write readin'" than it is to "read writin'".

And, no, I'm not going to provide a comprehensive list of all authors who are avid readers.  I stopped having that sort of argument at about age 12.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 2, 2012)

The Op mentions being a 'writer' and an 'author', but not specifically being a novellist, indeed it is hard to imagine someone who can't be bothered to read a novel  wanting to write one. Authors write many things besides novels though, including the scripts that he has seen performed and the reviews he has read on line, sounds like he has plenty of experience of them. 

Anyway Shakespeare produced all that and he had never even read Shakespeare.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 2, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> The Op mentions being a 'writer' and an 'author', but not specifically being a novellist, indeed it is hard to imagine someone who can't be bothered to read a novel  wanting to write one. Authors write many things besides novels though, including the scripts that he has seen performed and the reviews he has read on line, sounds like he has plenty of experience of them.
> 
> Anyway Shakespeare produced all that and he had never even read Shakespeare.



That's why someone else wrote all of Shakespeare's stuff, right?

My response was to srebak's post #78 where he mentions his "book writing skills" and all of the books he's mentioned have been novels.


----------



## srebak (Jan 2, 2012)

You know, maybe i did start this thread because i wanted reassurance for my problem. But, if only to end all of this arguing, I'm going to be writer, with or without reading. Maybe i'm being obstinate, if fact, that's probably exactly what i'm being. But someway, somehow, i'm going to reach the goal that got Rowling, Tolkien and Jacques the reputations they have today, somehow, my books will be on the shelf, it's my calling.


----------



## Foxee (Jan 2, 2012)

srebak said:


> You know, maybe i did start this thread because i wanted reassurance for my problem. But, if only to end all of this arguing, I'm going to be writer, with or without reading. Maybe i'm being obstinate, if fact, that's probably exactly what i'm being. But someway, somehow, i'm going to reach the goal that got Rowling, Tolkien and Jacques the reputations they have today, somehow, my books will be on the shelf, it's my calling.


What I can't figure out is why you felt it necessary to ask. If you have that much fire to sit down and pen a manuscript come hell or high water, just do it.


----------



## Sam (Jan 2, 2012)

Foxee said:


> What I can't figure out is why you felt it necessary to ask. If you have that much fire to sit down and pen a manuscript come hell or high water, just do it.



Exactly.

With all due respect, Srebak, it seems to me you're going to disregard the majority opinion here if it suits your cause. So what Foxee has said is true. Why ask if you aren't going to take the advice given? 

Can you write a novel without having read anything? Of course you can. The same way you can paint having never seen a picture. The same way you can sing having never heard music. The important question is will it be any good? Without anything of published standard to gauge it against, how will you ever know?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Jan 2, 2012)

You don't need to read books to be a writer.  You simply have to understand three things: storytelling, characterization, and grammar.  Each of those three things corresponds to an essential part of the book: Plot, setting, and presentation.  You need all three or else your book isn't going to go anywhere.  An amazing world presented with flawless grammar isn't going to be a story without a plot.  A plot and great characters means nothing if you don't understand basic language.  Perfect prose and a unique idea are useless if there's no place for that idea to be realized.

Reading books helps you understand all three of those components, but it's certainly not a prerequisite.  As long as you have access to some sort of media, like plays, movies, TV shows, etc. (and you're observant enough to LEARN from them), you'll be fine.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 2, 2012)

Sorry, but I don't understand how reading scripts or screenplays, or watching a movie, play, or TV show, will teach anyone about writing a story, short or novel. Scripts and screenplays are completely different forms, and watching something does not show one how to write that same thing. 

But hey, go ahead, don't read, just write. Like I said, it's pretty easy to tell who reads and who doesn't, so I'm quite sure a glance at the sample pages will be enough for a pass.


----------



## josh.townley (Jan 2, 2012)

srebak said:


> *1.* I'll be frank, i'm not sure why i write. Sure, part of me is probably doing it for the kind of fame J.K. Rowling, HCA, Mary Shelley and Roald Dahl all have. But at the same time, i think this is just what i want to do with my life
> 
> *2.* Maybe it's just my ego or just my need to get this out of the way, but i still think that my book writing skills are rather good for someone who hasn't read a full chapter book from beginning to end
> 
> ...



It's great to have such aspirations. Can I ask why you have never read a full novel from beginning to end? Have you just not found anything that really captures your imagination?
Most of us on the forum write because we love books. It's as simple as that. 

I went through quite a long period where I did very little reading, but since I've started writing in the last year or so, I've found myself reading again. I guess I re-discovered my love of books, and I really think that reading helps me write. It's not necessarily going to be the same for you, but I do think there are certain basics you need to understand if you want any chance at all of being published. Reading just happens to be a very good way to do this.

With regard to point *2*, just don't expect that to impress any potential publishers. The amount of reading the author has done won't even come into consideration by an agent or publisher. It's all about the quality of the finished product. 

Good luck to you!


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't think its wrong but if you are serious about writing novels then if I were you I would certainly try to finish a chapter of someone elses work, if not a full book.


----------



## Robdemanc (Jan 3, 2012)

srebak said:


> You know, maybe i did start this thread because i wanted reassurance for my problem. But, if only to end all of this arguing, I'm going to be writer, with or without reading. Maybe i'm being obstinate, if fact, that's probably exactly what i'm being. But someway, somehow, i'm going to reach the goal that got Rowling, Tolkien and Jacques the reputations they have today, somehow, my books will be on the shelf, it's my calling.



That sounds great, you are determined.  In general I prefer non fiction reading to fiction reading.  However, as I have been writing my own fiction over the last few years I have found that I am getting a lot out of reading fiction.   So I have increased my fiction reading greatly, and I think it has been more than worth it.  You mention JK Rowling, so why don't you start with her, I read the first Harry Potter and I have to say the book almost reads itself so its no big effort.


----------

