# Reading to get better at writing



## Yours Truly (Dec 22, 2017)

I'm sure this has been discussed before, if so feel free to delete this thread and point me in the direction of a previous discussion.

We all know that the best way to get better at writing, is writing. Write, let people critique, and write more. However what I have been doing a lot recently, since I decided I wanted to write, is reading from a critical perspective instead of from a perspective of just enjoying a novel. I'm sure everyone else does this too, but it was an epiphany for me. I've always been a heavy reader, but normally just for enjoyment. Reading a novel and dissecting the authors writing style, why they phrased things certain ways, how they describe a scene, etc. Instead of just enjoying the story.

I'm curious as to what books you all would recommend for someone trying to become a better writer. Whether those are novels that can be analyzed, or nonfiction books actually about writing. I welcome any and all recommendations because I currently consider myself a very mediocre writer, and am very interested in getting better. Any foundational books that you would recommend to any and all aspiring writers?


----------



## Sam (Dec 22, 2017)

Your writing in this thread does not occasion me to believe you're a mediocre writer, much less a very mediocre one. Trust me, I've seen my share of writing that could be described as that, and if the sample above is anything to go by, you're not in the category. 

For a start: 

What genre(s) do you wish to write in?


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 22, 2017)

Any nonfiction writing resource by John Dufresne, who wrote the modest proposal. Look him up but he answers your opening post question why we must read to write, and why we must write from real life.


----------



## moderan (Dec 22, 2017)

Jonathon Swift?


----------



## Yours Truly (Dec 22, 2017)

Sam said:


> Your writing in this thread does not occasion me to believe you're a mediocre writer, much less a very mediocre one. Trust me, I've seen my share of writing that could be described as that, and if the sample above is anything to go by, you're not in the category.
> 
> For a start:
> 
> What genre(s) do you wish to write in?



Maybe I should rephrase, I'm mediocre at developing stories. I'm mediocre as far as the creative process of writing. I've been writing for a long time in the nonfiction/analytical sense, so I guess I'm alright at the structure of writing.

I'm very interested in horror. H.P. Lovecraft, Clive Barker, that genre. Also science fiction: Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, etc.

My only experience with fiction writing is writing D&D campaigns that I've played through with some of my friends. :biggrin: Which I thoroughly enjoy, and I've just recently started a novel centering around a man who loses everything and is trying to discover/create a reason to keep going on with his life. It's a work in progress and I'm not sure where it's headed yet, which is why I want to learn more about the actual process of writing and creating stories.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 22, 2017)

Sorry, Moderan for that mistake he asked a question as this will be my only answer on the author who I recommend since people disagree on this usually. Thank you for the correction. My mistake he didn't write that it was Swift, I confused him. However, I find his advice helpful. For what it is worth this piece of information, he's well known in some writing schools. However, he teaches in the faculty of a university. And he seems to even advocate with some writing exercises doing activities that talk about inspiration being from real life and stories. It is more of a literary fiction course. But it's encouraging because he understands how to explain it since he backs it with exercises. He tells you, for example, to write from your experiences, using the who, what, why, how, when, where questions. These writings are your experiences based on real life by doing his assignment. He may not have the best credentials you will have to decide that by searching for him. Writing based on places you have been to, experiences, plot, how to plot, based on what you read or experienced. Trouble is when a character is at the end of his or her rope and that is when you should write about them. These are some of the topics, arguments or ideas of his. I hope this was helpful. If not discard this as not being helpful. (Each question is different, what does a character want? why?)(I finished reading it almost) 

@yours truly: coming up with ideas is the purpose of his book, to use the imagination by doing exercises that remind you of childhood, traumas, and so forth. If that interests you. To use it as fiction material. And yes I have had trouble writing, but his book is about writing using your emotions and being an observer of human nature, the human condition, and the general world around you. Where do you get ideas? That is the point of the book or mission IMO. I fit your definition as I can get writer's block.

Like I said if not helpful, then it is just a suggestion. For the question.

I think science fiction is based on cutting-edge research (extrapolation creates a story idea) while fantasy I just write to discover if it works. I know people know more than me on this they can help better than I can. But I am in that situation more of needing to imagine a story. Maybe my needs are different.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 22, 2017)

For story ideas, pay attention to, and look critically at, the world around you. What are the frustrations, injustices, and challenges that you see. How do those around you respond to what life throws at them? Story ideas are abundant, once you learn how to look.


----------



## Sam (Dec 22, 2017)

Yours Truly said:


> Maybe I should rephrase, I'm mediocre at developing stories. I'm mediocre as far as the creative process of writing. I've been writing for a long time in the nonfiction/analytical sense, so I guess I'm alright at the structure of writing.
> 
> I'm very interested in horror. H.P. Lovecraft, Clive Barker, that genre. Also science fiction: Douglas Adams, Isaac Asimov, etc.
> 
> My only experience with fiction writing is writing D&D campaigns that I've played through with some of my friends. :biggrin: Which I thoroughly enjoy, and I've just recently started a novel centering around a man who loses everything and is trying to discover/create a reason to keep going on with his life. It's a work in progress and I'm not sure where it's headed yet, which is why I want to learn more about the actual process of writing and creating stories.



Okay, that tells me something. 

Start with Barker's _Books of Blood_ or _Cabal_, if you haven't already, and then move onto something like Matheson's _Hell House _or _I am Legend, _and then try Lovecraft's the _The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories_, if you haven't likewise. It also wouldn't go amiss to try some Straub, Poe, McCammon, Simmons, and Kafka's done some good horror as well. 

Moderan could throw more sf at you than I could in my dreams, but my list would include Brunner's trilogy (_Stand on Zanzibar, The Sheep Look Up, Shockwave Rider_); anything by Philip K. Dick; William Gibson; _Flowers for Algernon_, by Daniel Keyes; anything by Roger Zelazny. 

Basically, if you want to get better at writing in your chosen genre, read the masters. Read anything and everything. Just read.


----------



## Yours Truly (Dec 22, 2017)

Sam said:


> Okay, that tells me something.
> 
> Start with Barker's _Books of Blood_ or _Cabal_, if you haven't already, and then move onto something like Matheson's _Hell House _or _I am Legend, _and then try Lovecraft's the _The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Stories_, if you haven't likewise.


Have read all of these multiple times. :lemo:
I'll have to go through them again though, more looking at the structure of the writing.



> It also wouldn't go amiss to try some Straub, Poe, McCammon, Simmons, and Kafka's done some good horror as well.
> 
> Moderan could throw more sf at you than I could in my dreams, but my list would include Brunner's trilogy (_Stand on Zanzibar, The Sheep Look Up, Shockwave Rider_); anything by Philip K. Dick; William Gibson; _Flowers for Algernon_, by Daniel Keyes; anything by Roger Zelazny.
> 
> Basically, if you want to get better at writing in your chosen genre, read the masters. Read anything and everything. Just read.


Thanks! I will definitely check these guys out. I really appreciate it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Dec 22, 2017)

Read John Gresham for character development.  He does an outstanding job of introducing and developing characters.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Dec 23, 2017)

> I'm curious as to what books you all would recommend for someone trying to become a better writer.


Hands down, it's Dwight Swain's, Techniques of the Selling Writer. Reading the finished product—the fiction of other writers—will expose you to the finished, and highly polished _product. _But why did the writer present this instead of that, and all the decisions made during the writing are not apparent. You can see _what_ the writer said in a certain situation, but will you know why? Here are a few things that I don't think you can learn by reading, if for no other reason than that you will be too into the action and the situation to notice:

• Why a scene nearly always ends in disaster for the protagonist.
• The structure of a scene on the page, and why it is not like a scene on the stage/screen.
• Why a short-term screen-goal is a necessity.
• The three questions a reader wants addressed quickly on entering a scene.
• Why the sentence, "Yvette couldn't help but smile when Charles came into the room," might better be rephrased.
• Why, at the climax, the protagonist's one true and reliable weapon is always dumb luck (something I learned from George of the Jungle).

If you know the answer to all of them, you're good to go. But if not, Swain's book will provide the answers to that, and more. He spends no time at all on stylistic matters. Instead he breaks the basics down to the nuts and bolts issues. When he went on tour with his all day workshops he used to fill auditoriums. It's an older book, and he talks about your typewriter, and assumes that successful writers are male—a product of his times. But for all that I've found only one book that comes close, Jack Bickham's Scene and Structure. And that makes seense because they were professors at the same university (Oklahoma).

Hope this helps


----------



## Phil Istine (Dec 23, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Hands down, it's Dwight Swain's, Techniques of the Selling Writer. Reading the finished product—the fiction of other writers—will expose you to the finished, and highly polished _product. _But why did the writer present this instead of that, and all the decisions made during the writing are not apparent. You can see _what_ the writer said in a certain situation, but will you know why? Here are a few things that I don't think you can learn by reading, if for no other reason than that you will be too into the action and the situation to notice:
> 
> • Why a scene nearly always ends in disaster for the protagonist.
> • The structure of a scene on the page, and why it is not like a scene on the stage/screen.
> ...



Indeed, I did buy this work a few weeks ago on the strength of your (oft-repeated) suggestion 
I do find his apparent gender stereotyping a bit off putting, but I suppose it's forgiveable as we are all products of our backgrounds.  I also struggle a bit at some places where he uses what I think are Americanisms (I'm British).

However, the content so far seems sound.  He was very short on examples in the early part of the book; it was crying out for some.  Then he started using them more - which was helpful.  I find some parts of the book verbose and, as a consequence, a little tedious.  He would have done far better to reduce the padding.  Furthermore, I'm glad that I made the decision to purchase the Kindle version because there are a number of words that I needed to look up (this is far easier with a Kindle than a textbook).

I have reached a point in the book where I need to slow down a lot in order to understand his messages.  This is not about Swain though, it's about me. I'm well aware of my current limitations and I have reached the place where Swain is testing them to their limits.  This is fine because any book that is showing things that are new to me is inevitably going to arrive at such a place.

I would recommend this book too -with the reservation that the (cheaper)  Kindle version is probably a better buy due to the need to look up some words, and because a learning reader will probably need to type in notes at certain places.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 23, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Hands down, it's Dwight Swain's, Techniques of the Selling Writer. Reading the finished product—the fiction of other writers—will expose you to the finished, and highly polished _product. _But why did the writer present this instead of that, and all the decisions made during the writing are not apparent. You can see _what_ the writer said in a certain situation, but will you know why? Here are a few things that I don't think you can learn by reading, if for no other reason than that you will be too into the action and the situation to notice:
> 
> • Why a scene nearly always ends in disaster for the protagonist.
> • The structure of a scene on the page, and why it is not like a scene on the stage/screen.
> ...



This seems very formulaic. I detest stories or books that have a formula, and never finish them. 

Every scene, or nearly every one, ends in disaster for the protagonist? Quickly apparent and boring.

Dumb luck is the protagonist's greatest weapon? Nah. It's like the old question, "Why is it you always find what you're looking for in the last place you look?" The answer is obvious. Because once it's found you stop looking.  Turning something into an advantage can seem like dumb luck, but it's actually different.

Buy Swain's book and read it if you think it will help, but don't become a slave to the ideas presented.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 23, 2017)

I think you can learn as much from average or even weak (but strong enough to get published) books as you can from reading the greats, as long as you're reading critically. If you realize you're not invested in a certain character and try to figure out what's missing, that's an important lesson.

And reading current best-sellers, whether they're likely to be considered "great" down the road, will help you learn what's currently in demand in your genre, what the current standards and expectations are, etc.

I also think it's useful to read all genres, not just your home genre. If a story is effective for you even though it's not a genre you would normally read, that's good writing, and you can learn from it.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Dec 23, 2017)

I was unaware that Reading was deficient in its reading ability, I know it's in Berkshire, is their educational system that far behind the times?


----------



## Phil Istine (Dec 23, 2017)

Bloggsworth said:


> I was unaware that Reading was deficient in its reading ability, I know it's in Berkshire, is their educational system that far behind the times?



Slough is OK.


----------



## Terry D (Dec 23, 2017)

Yours Truly said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed before, if so feel free to delete this thread and point me in the direction of a previous discussion.
> 
> We all know that the best way to get better at writing, is writing. Write, let people critique, and write more. However what I have been doing a lot recently, since I decided I wanted to write, is reading from a critical perspective instead of from a perspective of just enjoying a novel. I'm sure everyone else does this too, but it was an epiphany for me. I've always been a heavy reader, but normally just for enjoyment. Reading a novel and dissecting the authors writing style, why they phrased things certain ways, how they describe a scene, etc. Instead of just enjoying the story.
> 
> I'm curious as to what books you all would recommend for someone trying to become a better writer. Whether those are novels that can be analyzed, or nonfiction books actually about writing. I welcome any and all recommendations because I currently consider myself a very mediocre writer, and am very interested in getting better. Any foundational books that you would recommend to any and all aspiring writers?



Read your favorites and ask yourself what you like about them. Why do you prefer some stories over others? What scenes, or passages grab you? Why? Always ask why. Learn to read critically, look at what makes Lovecraft resonate with you. Read bad stuff too. Oft times it's easier to see what doesn't work than what does. 

There's no 'how-to' book which will make you a great writer. They can help. I've read many, but I can't tell you any time I've actually thought about the advice given while I was working on a story. The information in books is never bad unless you take it as gospel and try to force yourself to fit someone else's mold. Some of the instructional books I've read, and enjoied, are by the mystery writer Lawrence Block; _Spider Spin Me a Web_, _Telling Lies for Fun and Profit_, and _Writing the Novel from Plot to Print_ were all good reads. Stephen King's,_ On Writing_ is also worth reading. What I like about reading advice books from experienced novelists is they seldom try to mandate how you should write. They are more apt to say, "Here's what I do, and why." 

Being a good writer is all about finding your own voice and hoping it resonates with other people. Everyone finds their own voice in a different way. There's no one way that works for all writers. If you want it bad enough, you will find your own way.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Dec 23, 2017)

> I have reached a point in the book where I need to slow down a lot in  order to understand his messages.


With me that happened at the opening to chapter two. I read, said, "Why in the hell didn't I see that for myself," and went off to correct that pont in my six unsold novels, which took over a week. But at the end, the point had become useable tool, not something to try to remember as I write. 

Then I turned two pages and bang...back to correct six novels. After it happened about six times I felt so stupid I gave thought to saying, "I'll just use what I've gotten so far for a while, then come back for more. In reality, I was intimidated, and know that in another page or two I'd lose another week. But good sense prevailed and I worked my way though. And as I've said, what I submitted next brought a contract. And I had read a few books before that. But most of them talked about issues of style, and didn't go into more than surface detail.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Dec 23, 2017)

> This seems very formulaic. I detest stories or books that have a formula, and never finish them.


So is writing a report, or an essay. So is any profession. Writing is filled with, "Do this not that." You spent twelve years of your public education time learning the way you currently write. And you've forgotten all the times your teachers influenced how you write, according to formulas such as how to organize a paragraph or page. No one says you have to adhere to them, but given that they've proven so useful to so many, it would seem counterproductive to not at least learn what they are in the case of fiction. Because you may not take them seriously, but the people you hope to sell your work to do. And as it's so often said, the customer is always right.

If you've ever learned the waltz, or ballroom dancing in general, it's filled with formulaic figures. You start out doing a rigid box step, counting off 1...2...3, over and over. But then, when you no longer have to think about it, you can add in flourishes, and personal touches. And suddenly, you're dancing. Swain's class roster, when he was part of the staff teaching the legendary commercial fiction workshops at Oklahoma University, read like a who's who of American fiction. And his book was the one other books most often quoted. If it's not your cup of tea, it's not. And of course, you can write in any way you care to. But it seems short sighted to condemn a book because there are parts you disagree with. And of course, if you have one you like better, recommend it, of course.





> Every scene, or nearly every one, ends in disaster for the protagonist? Quickly apparent and boring.


But they do. And it's not apparent or boring. It's demanded. The reason is simple and obvious: Every scene contains rising tension, because if it doesn't it becomes boring. Think of a fight scene that lasts ten minutes with the same blows traded over and over.But if we continues to add tension, eventually, it crosses over into melodrama, and we certainly don't want that.

So what are the options? The protagonist wins and the story is over. The protagonist loses and the story is over. Or...the protagonist is forced to withdraw, rethink, and then with a new plan go on. But every scene starts with a bit more tension than the ones before, with increased risk and fewer options—and you'll find that in pretty much all books and courses, because it's the nature of storytelling, be it about saving the world or getting a date for the prom. One of my articles, _Batman is my Role Model_ may clarify, though I'm not allowed to link to my own articles within the post.

Another article that will clarify scene structure is here.





> Dumb luck is the protagonist's greatest weapon?


Of course it is. You see it in pretty much every story. Tension and uncertainty steadily rise, while options reduce, till it's all or nothing: the climax, and we reach the black moment when all seems lost. Then, some lucky break—perhaps our hero notices a document lying around, sees something that can be used as a weapon, or something that changes the odds in our favor, and victory is achieved. It's the thing that's been bringing audiences to their feet since the first storyteller stepped to the campfire and said, "Once upon a time..."


----------



## Sam (Dec 24, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Another article that will clarify scene structure is here.Of course it is. You see it in pretty much every story. Tension and uncertainty steadily rise, while options reduce, till it's all or nothing: the climax, and we reach the black moment when all seems lost. Then, some lucky break—perhaps our hero notices a document lying around, sees something that can be used as a weapon, or something that changes the odds in our favor, and victory is achieved. It's the thing that's been bringing audiences to their feet since the first storyteller stepped to the campfire and said, "Once upon a time..."



And it's also running the risk of being a _​deus ex machina. _


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 24, 2017)

As Jay himself said, "But if we continues to add tension, eventually, it crosses over into melodrama, and we certainly don't want that."

I disagree with the dumb luck ending, too. I write mysteries, so my MC has to figure things out. Maybe other genres can rely on dumb luck. Or one can look at every event as dumb luck. Personally, I think an observant person will notice what is available to be noticed. A less observant person has to rely on luck. 

As for ballroom dance, I once taught it. Personal touches and flourishes were not allowed. Ballroom dance is a lot more like a sonet. Very structured, but the sequence of steps is for the man to choose. It's the sequence that provides the expression.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Dec 24, 2017)

> I write mysteries, so my MC has to figure things out.


Yet he cannot figure it out, and the situation looks worse and worse, until at the climax comes the unexpected, or chance event that is the key to solving it. If your story is no more than a matter of laboriously tracking down clue after clue, and there's nothing to cause that spark of intuition that beings the solution you've written a chronicle of events, not a story.

Look at any successful story Tension rises steadily as options fall away, until we reach the climax. And just as in a scene we must stop raising the stakes before we reach melodrama levels, so it is with the story. We can delay that by adding side-plots and parallel stories, but sooner or later we enter the climax. But we _cannot_ enter it with the protagonist all ready, and just pointing and saying, "He did it...and here's how. All that generates in the reader is, "Oh...I see.? But that reader wants you to make them say, "Son of a bitch! I never saw that coming." They want our hero to be heroic. More then that, they want the hero to be on the good side of poetic justice, which is usually framed by the black moment, when all seems lost, followed by the sudden change that allows our protagonist to snatch victory from defeat. And that usually involves something unplanned and unexpected. Or as HGeorge of the Jungle Noted: "George have secret weapon: dumb luck." 

And while you're right, that a ballroom dancer uses the existing figures in a way they choose, several thoughts.

First: you just made the case for learning the steps of writing fiction, so you can choose the most appropriate one. 

Second: Of coure they're not allowed in the classroom. But the difference between an adequate and a good dancer is not that one chooses the steps with more skill, it's that they add flair and the personal touch. You don't will a dancing contest without it. A look at Dancing With the Stars will show you people using the same steps and doing the same dance, but the winner does more than just do the steps as they were taught. My parents were dancers. And while they did the same steps (mostly) as were taught, they added a great deal of beauty—which is what we hope to do to the tricks of the trade that we use.

And finally: Every one of those steps you taught was created by someone who did more than follow the script.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 24, 2017)

He may teach you how to structure a scene which is helpful for a page turner and selling fiction by word of mouth maybe or placing a story's ending on a cliffhanger. His theory of conflict, and plotting he doesn't really give an explanation I personally found useful or some may have it to be though. I assumed he did, those are steps of fiction for me at least. The books on plotting and other fiction techniques are something that I am looking to comprehend. I use to free write a lot and to much frustration my grammar without Grammarly wasn't good. But somehow instruction is what I feel I lack, so I resorted to the author mentioned who recommends books on those topics. For absolute begginners and struggling writers, I'd wait maybe before picking up swain's book if it were me.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Dec 24, 2017)

> https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SWA1237


It's not an easy book. He was a professor, and tends to go into great detail, as his species do. He also has the habit of twiddling off on side details and so is less focused. 

An easier book, by one of his students, Debra Dixon, is what I suggest for beginners. She doesn't go into as much detail, but she does cover a few points he doesn't, and her, _GMC: Goal Motivation & Conflict_ is a warm easy read, and I felt as if I was sitting with Deb discussing writing.

Another good one is the audio boildown of Swain's all day workshops on writing and character creation ((Dwight Swain, master writing teacher.). He's not a dynamic motivator in his manner, but the classes were on point, and at times, I, who had already read the book, was moved to say, "The man's a genius." There are interesting asides on publishers, and even a bit on how to kill someone with a doorknob. Well worth the $6 fee.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 25, 2017)

Dancing competitions involve choreographed dances, which have the same rhythm of their ancestral counterparts, but otherwise are totally different. Those on Dancing With The Stars would be hard pressed to do any of those dances on a dancefloor with other dancers around. So it's apples and oranges.

In my mysteries, clues are accumulated until the solution or perpetrator is found. That's a far cry from every scene ending in disaster, or the solution only being found because of dumb luck.



> And finally: Every one of those steps you taught was created by someone who did more than follow the script.



You make that sound like a good thing, yet seem to be saying that thinking and creating a story without Dwight's script is a bad thing. 

I think this topic has been pretty well exhausted. At least for me. I leave it to those reading to make up their own minds.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Dec 26, 2017)

> In my mysteries, clues are accumulated until the solution or perpetrator is found.


SO no climax, no rising tension? Just a chronicle of what happened, checking of the boxes? Not having read more than a short excerpt of your work I can't comment on the writing (and this isn't the pace for it, in any case), but it doesn't sound like the traditional three act structure for fiction. If you have a novel without a climax you might have a hard time selling it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 26, 2017)

I usually don't enjoy the thrilling climax. Some endings are good, but I can't think of any that are primarily dumb luck. Surely luck always plays a role. But I substantially improved my WIP (from my perspective) by eliminating luck from the thrilling climax. And all of my "thrilling climaxes" follow that same formula.

Hans comes back to save Luke Skywalker, Luke turns off his targeting system and goes with the force. And you want me to believe that it was then just dumb luck that he succeeded?


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 27, 2017)

Any advice I give my time to read must first be vetted by reviewing what the writer has written, or the number of fiction books they've sold.  

If your best sellers are books that tell other writers how to write, then I take your advice with a grain of salt.

If your best fiction novels are terrible *IMO*, then I won't take your advice at all.

So, choose carefully who listen to.  That includes people on this board.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 27, 2017)

Tettsuo said:


> Any advice I give my time to read must first be vetted by reviewing what the writer has written, or the number of fiction books they've sold.
> 
> If your best sellers are books that tell other writers how to write, then I take your advice with a grain of salt.
> 
> ...



I think there _are_ people who are great coaches/editors/teachers but aren't that good at actually doing the thing themselves.

There may be fewer of these in writing than in other fields of endeavour... like, I can see someone who really understands all the fundamentals of a sport but who just isn't physically designed for that sport being an excellent coach but not an excellent performer. I have more trouble seeing how someone who really understands all the fundamentals of writing wouldn't be able to produce fantastic work... what would be missing from this person that would make him or her unable to perform?

I'm not sure. But I know I've gotten some great editing from people who aren't themselves authors, so...?


----------



## sas (Dec 27, 2017)

Cliches have lasted due to their essential truth:

Those who can do. Those who can't teach.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 27, 2017)

I think writing is teachable. Why don't you think its teachable? Is this a good question to ask? This raises other questions too I realize. If you, for instance, say it is not. If it weren't people wouldn't be writing at all. There is craft and then there is talent. Therein lies a difference. Narrowing the discussion I say if you don't know craft then you don't develop enough talent. But I am not the talented person to be making those statements. It takes practice. It is much like a thought experiment in this regard. You can ask a question, and get different answers. That said I respect opinions which won't be proven until years later or someone for whom this question matter puts in some effort. If you facilitate someone why can't they learn? Facilitators give you the class but it is a student-centered class. It is much of a way to see if the student can do it with no effort. If not facilitator there is an authoritative teacher, and more ways of teaching styles. I used to be a teacher myself. It's a teaching style. Then there are learning styles. Auditory, kinesthetic, visual, and maybe all of these.

Things you can or cant teach:
I agree on a vision cant be taught. (what you like to write for example I may be too intellectual in writing something but emotionally the human condition or escapism can be valid ways of entertainment, morality.) I.E. what you write about.
That is what I understand from "vision."

From my opinion craft can be learned. Maybe talent is too tricky to define for me. So I'll just say craft can be learned. The rest I dont know about.

Then the rest is mysterious to me. As in what opinions people have on aspects of writing.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 27, 2017)

Theglasshouse : As you can see from this thread, many people stubbornly hold onto preconceived ideas. It's impossible to learn something new until you make room for it by letting go of the old. I think that's the biggest stumbling block when learning anything, including writing.

Bayview : There are folks who are great at editing who can't write. Either they don't have the story ideas, or they don't want to spend the time needed to write a novel. Whatever. It really doesn't matter. They accept their limitations, however, and go with their strengths. And that's a good thing!


----------



## moderan (Dec 28, 2017)

sas said:


> Cliches have lasted due to their essential truth:
> 
> Those who can do. Those who can't teach.


Those who can't teach, criticize.


----------



## Sam (Dec 28, 2017)

sas said:


> Cliches have lasted due to their essential truth:
> 
> Those who can do. Those who can't teach.



So what about those who can both do and teach?


----------



## Tettsuo (Dec 28, 2017)

Sam said:


> So what about those who can both do and teach?


Listen to that writer!


----------



## sas (Dec 28, 2017)

Or, how about this switch:

Those who criticize, teach.


----------



## Robbie (Dec 28, 2017)

Aha, I get it.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 29, 2017)

Sam said:


> So what about those who can both do and teach?



There's only so many hours in a day, and only so many days in a week. Choices have to be made as to which is the higher priority. Even if one can do both writing and teaching well, trying to do both at the same time is likely to cause one or the other to become the lessor priority, and it will therefore suffer.


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 29, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> There's only so many hours in a day, and only so many days in a week. Choices have to be made as to which is the higher priority. Even if one can do both writing and teaching well, trying to do both at the same time is likely to cause one or the other to become the lessor priority, and it will therefore suffer.



I think it's human nature to want to pass on knowledge/experience. I don't suppose Stephen King had to write 'On Writing,' and I'm pretty sure he didn't consider it an ineffective use of his time. Simple truth is, teaching others the trade also helps the tutor grow too. - I've learned far more editing the words of others than from ploughing through my own prose.

So, you see, writers can be Jack of all trades... Did you see what I did there?:wink2:


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 29, 2017)

Gavrushka said:


> I think it's human nature to want to pass on knowledge/experience. I don't suppose Stephen King had to write 'On Writing,' and I'm pretty sure he didn't consider it an ineffective use of his time. Simple truth is, teaching others the trade also helps the tutor grow too. - I've learned far more editing the words of others than from ploughing through my own prose.
> 
> So, you see, writers can be Jack of all trades... Did you see what I did there?:wink2:



Yep.  I saw what you did. And I believe that one person can do more than one thing. I didn't pick my user name for no reason. I also know, from experience, that it's impossible to give all things equal time and attention. I don't think King wrote his book on writing during the height of his fiction career. What I'm saying is we pick and choose what we do when.


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 29, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Yep.  I saw what you did. And I believe that one person can do more than one thing. I didn't pick my user name for no reason. I also know, from experience, that it's impossible to give all things equal time and attention. I don't think King wrote his book on writing during the height of his fiction career. What I'm saying is we pick and choose what we do when.



Yes, experience forms a personal narrative, but not a universal truth. Combine that with the experiences of others, and you may feel a little differently. Some people may choose to pursue a career in writing and, to do so, they may need to supplement their income. This isn't choice, but necessity. I've worked with a lady, once of this site, who is now represented - even had the luxury of choosing agent - but she is now looking to start writing workshops so she can spend more time writing.

So what you say is valid from your perspective, but applying it to others isn't always going to work. - And you can be a master of several trades, just as you can be fluent in multiple languages. -I acknowledge the opportunity cost of teaching time eating into creative writing time but, as I said, pragmatism.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Dec 29, 2017)

Gavrushka said:


> Yes, experience forms a personal narrative, but not a universal truth. Combine that with the experiences of others, and you may feel a little differently. Some people may choose to pursue a career in writing and, to do so, they may need to supplement their income. This isn't choice, but necessity. I've worked with a lady, once of this site, who is now represented - even had the luxury of choosing agent - but she is now looking to start writing workshops so she can spend more time writing.
> 
> So what you say is valid from your perspective, but applying it to others isn't always going to work. - And you can be a master of several trades, just as you can be fluent in multiple languages. -I acknowledge the opportunity cost of teaching time eating into creative writing time but, as I said, pragmatism.



It doesn't matter how talented or intelligent one is. Time spent doing A means that time is not spent doing B. That is a universal truth. That doesn't take away from the person's abilities.

I'm not sure what exactly there is to argue about, so I'll let you have the last word on this, should you be so inclined.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Dec 29, 2017)

The more reading you do, the more you enhance your own writing by expanding your mind as you go. I'm constantly reading things whenever possible. Just bought two new novels today and have almost gotten to the halfway point on the first one. Books are my fuel!

-JJB


----------



## Theglasshouse (Dec 29, 2017)

Agreed with the previous post. Been picking up possible plots just from reading the Earthsea series. Everything is so mysterious in the novel I am reading.


----------



## Gavrushka (Dec 30, 2017)

JJBuchholz said:


> The more reading you do, the more you enhance your own writing by expanding your mind as you go. I'm constantly reading things whenever possible. Just bought two new novels today and have almost gotten to the halfway point on the first one. Books are my fuel!
> 
> -JJB



That's a great way of putting it. Books are indeed the fuel that can broaden our imaginations. And it's where our love of writing starts, our passion. - A little over a year ago I read a series of books that even inspired me to write in a new genre. Anything writing/reading related could enhance our prose, but a skilfully written book by an exceptional wordsmith is right up there.

@Theglasshouse: - I don't remember much of the Earthsea series, (I'm old and it was centuries ago,) but I remember the emotion they inspired, the gasps and trembling hands. - We all build our worlds on the experiences we've had, and a huge part of that is the books we've devoured.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 30, 2017)

One possible note of caution: I sometimes have trouble if I'm reading something I really like at the same time as I'm writing something; I find myself unconsciously imitating the style of the other writer, rather than developing my own. I'm not sure if I'm especially sensitive to this (I also tend to accidentally mimic people's accents when I talk to them for a longer period), but for me at least, it's a problem.

So I tend to save my more immersive reading for times when I'm not actively writing or editing. I can read something quick and easy while writing, but if I suspect a book is going to really drag me in, especially if it seems to have a distinctive style of writing, I'll hold off on diving in so I can keep my writing _mine_.

May not be an issue for anyone else, but it seemed worth mentioning.


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 6, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> An easier book, by one of his students, Debra Dixon, is what I suggest for beginners. She doesn't go into as much detail, but she does cover a few points he doesn't, and her, _GMC: Goal Motivation & Conflict_ is a warm easy read, and I felt as if I was sitting with Deb discussing writing.



Thanks for this recommendation. The above book is closer to what I need right now.  On reflection, I ought to have tackled this one before Swain's. It's more focussed and written far more concisely.  It even had me watching _The Wizard of Oz_ all the way through for the very first time.
That's not to say that Swain's book isn't useful.  I learned from it and can return to it when I feel ready for tougher meat.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 7, 2018)

> Some endings are good, but I can't think of any that are primarily dumb luck.


Think about it. At the climax there is always the black moment, where all seems lost. Take that Star Wars film you mentioned. All is lost until the voice of his mentor comes out of nowhere, says to use the force, and gives him something unexpected and unplanned. He was given that chance because poetic justice demanded it, and him dying was unacceptable. In virtually every story it's coincidence (dumb luck) or an outside agency (the fairy godmother gimmick) that provides the unexpected bonus that saves the day.

In the Leslie Charteris novels depicting, The Saint, he successfully bypassed that by having the reader believe all was lost, then having Simon Templar save the day by making use of something he had ready, because he anticipated the black moment. But he was unique. 

The trick is that unless all seems lost there's no drama, no black moment, and the story plays like a wish-dream, where the protagonist wins the game too easily.

How many times have you seen someone in a terrible situation say, "Wait...I have an idea." How many times is the protagonist on his back, about to die, when he notices a piece of chain lying about that he can use to trip the bad guy? How many times a situation that could best be described with the words, "As chance would have it."? In other words, dumb luck.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 7, 2018)

sas said:


> Cliches have lasted due to their essential truth:
> 
> Those who can do. Those who can't teach.


On the other hand, it can equally be said that those who "do" can't teach. After all, where do you think those who do learned how to "do" got it from? Teaching is a specialized skill in and of itself. And being great at anything doesn't correlate with teaching others those skills well.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 7, 2018)

> The more reading you do, the more you enhance your own writing by expanding your mind as you go.


You learn many necessary things about writing by reading, and certainly all of us are avid readers, first. But when reading you see only the product, which is the product of polishing, intense editing, and more. We learn nothing of the choices the author made, and why. For that you need to know the whys. My article, _Deconstructing Samantha_, was written to show how much thought, and purpose goes into every aspect of creating a scene—and how much the reader is not aware of.

Eating in a fine restaurant will teach us many things, but not how to use and sharpen a chefs knife. Eating Cajun cooking may make you love it, but it won't teach you to prepare what they call, the trinity.

To produce any product we need the process. And in any profession there are things that are only obvious when pointed out, and things that must be accepted on faith till usage demonstrates its necessity. So it is with any profession, even ours.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 7, 2018)

Sorry for the stack of responses, above. I was on holiday with my beloved since Christmas Eve. Had a great time, but it's fun to be back.


----------



## Terry D (Jan 7, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> On the other hand, it can equally be said that those who "do" can't teach. After all, where do you think those who do learned how to "do" got it from? Teaching is a specialized skill in and of itself. And being great at anything doesn't correlate with teaching others those skills well.



This is simply not true. Some of the finest books and articles on writing I have ever read were written by highly successful novelists. Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Lawrence Block, and Ernest Hemingway to name a few. And the one common thread through their books is the directive to read, read, read to learn writing. Read a book and there is nothing hidden. Every technique the writer used is on clear display for anyone to figure out. It helps some people to have a third party involved, but it is not essential.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Jan 9, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> You learn many necessary things about writing by reading, and certainly all of us are avid readers, first. But when reading you see only the product, which is the product of polishing, intense editing, and more. We learn nothing of the choices the author made, and why. For that you need to know the whys. My article, _Deconstructing Samantha_, was written to show how much thought, and purpose goes into every aspect of creating a scene—and how much the reader is not aware of.
> 
> Eating in a fine restaurant will teach us many things, but not how to use and sharpen a chefs knife. Eating Cajun cooking may make you love it, but it won't teach you to prepare what they call, the trinity.
> 
> To produce any product we need the process. And in any profession there are things that are only obvious when pointed out, and things that must be accepted on faith till usage demonstrates its necessity. So it is with any profession, even ours.



I want to talk about this, but instead I will stay on topic. My favorite ending bears no resemblance to your advice. Same for my 3 favorite books. That type of ending sounds uninteresting; if that was the best the author could do, I probably would not read to the end. So there is no way I would have gotten to that advice by reading books. I wouldn't have gotten to that place just by writing either.

It sounds exactly what I would read as advice. (If it is bad advice, you suggested that people ignore it, but you did not say how they were supposed to know.)


----------



## bookmasta (Jan 13, 2018)

Yours Truly said:


> I'm sure this has been discussed before, if so feel free to delete this thread and point me in the direction of a previous discussion.
> 
> We all know that the best way to get better at writing, is writing. Write, let people critique, and write more. However what I have been doing a lot recently, since I decided I wanted to write, is reading from a critical perspective instead of from a perspective of just enjoying a novel. I'm sure everyone else does this too, but it was an epiphany for me. I've always been a heavy reader, but normally just for enjoyment. Reading a novel and dissecting the authors writing style, why they phrased things certain ways, how they describe a scene, etc. Instead of just enjoying the story.
> 
> I'm curious as to what books you all would recommend for someone trying to become a better writer. Whether those are novels that can be analyzed, or nonfiction books actually about writing. I welcome any and all recommendations because I currently consider myself a very mediocre writer, and am very interested in getting better. Any foundational books that you would recommend to any and all aspiring writers?



Read what you love to write. The rest will follow naturally.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jan 13, 2018)

Just write you won't regret it. I thought craft could be taught. You have to work hard. Don't depend on books for advice. Practice makes perfect. I learned my lesson the difficult way. If for instance as with bookmaster's suggestion you want to be inspired. Read books and imagine what could go wrong in those books. It's something I am doing now. But focusing on my revision skills, hence I wouldn't say craft books are the best source of where to get inspiration.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 13, 2018)

> Originally Posted by Jay Greenstein
> On the other hand, it can equally be said that those who "do" can't teach. After all, where do you think those who do learned how to "do" got it from? Teaching is a specialized skill in and of itself. And being great at anything doesn't correlate with teaching others those skills well.





Terry D said:


> This is simply not true. Some of the finest books and articles on writing I have ever read were written by highly successful novelists. Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Lawrence Block, and Ernest Hemingway to name a few. And the one common thread through their books is the directive to read, read, read to learn writing. Read a book and there is nothing hidden. Every technique the writer used is on clear display for anyone to figure out. It helps some people to have a third party involved, but it is not essential.



I find Jay's second sentence a little confusing. This, 'Teaching is a specialized skill in and of itself' I would agree with, but I don't see why a single person should not combine the two skills, they are not mutually exclusive, and they are closely related. All masterclasses are given by masters in their subject, but not all masters are capable of giving classes.

I would say continue to read critically, increasing your knowledge of what to look for can be done both by reading books on criticism and by reading crits. given on the site. It has it rewards and drawbacks, I find myself stopped and distracted from the author's main point by a clumsily constructed sentence sometimes, which can detract from  the 'fun' element, or even the informative element if sufficiently distracted. I am reminded of the work done by 'Nazi' scientists concerning the correlation of lung cancer and smoking which was junked because of political sympathies that had nothing to do with it. It took ten years and a lotof wasted lives before a 'credible' source made the correlation. Whilst imagining how it could be done better I try not to let myself be too distracted by the writing 

I am ambivalent about Jay's tendency to be 'absolute' in his statements. For example 'But when reading you see only the product, which is the product of polishing, intense editing, and more.' is often true, but there are authors, such as Enid Blyton or AA Fair, aka Errol Stanley Gardner, aka several other pseudonyms, who simply sat down and wrote a book straight off then sent it to the publisher. It is sometimes argued that this is inferior literature of no consequence, but it depends what you seek, both those authors made fortunes and brought hours of pleasure to very many people. The lesson of 'five cent words are more readable than ten cent ones' could be learned from them.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Jan 13, 2018)

> but there are authors, such as Enid Blyton or AA Fair, aka Errol Stanley  Gardner, aka several other pseudonyms, who simply sat down and wrote a  book straight off then sent it to the publisher


Yup, that's true. But such authors are damn rare. Given the 99.9% rejection rate it pretty obviously doesn't work for the majority of hopeful writers.

But that aside, the problem is that we have not a clue of if the people you mention read a book on the subject, talked to people who write, were mentored, or anything else. So the data is woefully incomplete. For all we know the people you mention were member of a writing club or critique group for years before finding success.

The one thing we know for certain is that we learn only nonfiction writing skills in our school days because the entire purpose of public education is to create self-sufficient, and employable adults. And on the job we write reports, letters, papers, and essays—all of which have as their goal informing the reader. We spend zero time on how to handle tags, what a scene goal is and what it does for a scene. In fact, we spend no time on what a scene on the page is. And no one tells us the difference between viewpoint and POV as defined by which pronouns we use.

Reading, which is something we all love, doesn't help, because we're not privy to any of the decisions the author made, or why one line was used as against another. That's process, something we can't get by reading any more than we can learn to make shoes by buying and wearing them.

 Think about it: not one in ten people can tell you what's different about the first paragraph in a chapter in pretty close to half the books they read. It's something we see all the time, and have seen since we began reading. But ask some friends and see how many can tell you without looking. And if they don't notice something so obvious, what are the chances that they will know why a statement like "Alice frowned when Norman came into the room," can be a problem?

Think about it. They offer four year majors in commercial fiction at the universities. Surely _some_ of what they teach are issues we won't intuit by simply writing.

When I began writing I had no clue that there was a body of craft and specialized techniques that allow us to entertain, as against just informing the reader. I wrote and queried six novels, and received only rejections, but thought I was close to publication, and was a pretty good writer. Then I paid for a critique. The result literally destroyed me, because the pages were _covered_ with blue ink. In reality, I had not a clue of how to write for publication because I was still using my schooldays writing skills, and wasn't aware there _was_ any other approach to writing. 

As for teaching, I prefer someone honored for their teaching abilities. There are too many books on writing that are filled with, "Here, read this chapter and I'll tell you why the writing is so great." My library contains about fifty books on writing, most have far too much fluff and self promotion in them. Though in fairness, that's my reaction. Yours may differ for a given book.


----------



## Pete_C (Jan 13, 2018)

Jay Greenstein said:


> The one thing we know for certain is that we learn only nonfiction writing skills in our school days because the entire purpose of public education is to create self-sufficient, and employable adults. And on the job we write reports, letters, papers, and essays—all of which have as their goal informing the reader. We spend zero time on how to handle tags, what a scene goal is and what it does for a scene. In fact, we spend no time on what a scene on the page is. And no one tells us the difference between viewpoint and POV as defined by which pronouns we use.
> 
> Reading, which is something we all love, doesn't help, because we're not privy to any of the decisions the author made, or why one line was used as against another. That's process, something we can't get by reading any more than we can learn to make shoes by buying and wearing them.



The problem with the argument presented here, and often echoed in other comments, is that it's all based on massive assumptions, which - like many assumptions - are incorrect. Jay, you clearly think you weren't taught about fiction writing at school, but like many of us, you were. If you viewed English Lit as little more than reading Shakespeare or dissecting Poe then maybe the point of those lessons was missed. However, anyone with the mind of a writer would immediately find the depth of knowledge in those lessons. Just as woodwork and metalwork taught the basics of engineering, so many lessons in school teach the core skills of writing fiction.

To be honest, I saw woodwork and metalwork as just 'making shit I could buy better versions of'. However, kids with an engineering mind saw a greater depth than that. In other subjects what they saw as pointless I embraced because I recognised how those skills would be useful in writing.

I remember during an exam getting a mundane question such as 'explain the difference between fiscal and monetary policy', and my answer was a piece of fiction which highlighted the difference. It answered the question but also worked for me because that was how I'd been taught - in school- to think; creative writing was a pivotal tool. A lot of kids didn't think that way, because it didn't interest them. So, if someone has an aptitude to write, schooling does teach fiction writing.

Reading also teaches good writing, as well as originality. Writing in a formulaic way, as you like to promote with defined scene structuring and rules about motivation and action relationships, is a bit like painting by numbers. There's little creativity, little to no originality, no unique thought on the side of the creator. Doing it that way religiously will pass some time, make the participant feel like they've painted a picture (if they're not totally honest with themself) and ultimately might produce something partially acceptable. It won't be a masterpiece, it won't be thought provoking or challenging, it won't be heavy with originality and it won't be of interest to the outside world.

Reading exposes the writer to varied and differing techniques, it shows how the so-called rules can be broken, it teaches style and substance, highlights originality and promotes creativity. Yes, if someone picks up a book and reads it for entertainment they might not learn much, but your assumption is that no writer picks up a book and examines how the writer has created their work, and that's hugely insulting to those writers who read in more depth. Indeed, it's condescending, because it's based upon you deciding how we read and what we are mentally capable of taking away from reading. It pre-guesses that we don't have the wherewithal to dig deeper, but we do. It's something many of us learned many years ago because we applied ourselves to the art of writing.

If a writer doesn't read widely, and consider the works they read in detail, I'd say they'll struggle to perfect their craft. If they read books and articles and blogs about how to construct fiction and about the so-called rules of writing, they'll end up killing their creativity.

Think about classic literature in any genre. There will be a whole bunch of 'me-too' works that will sell, following patterns that arguably fit into writing structures. Of course, it's only an assumption that those writers learned those structures from books about writing, mentors, writing blogs or other 'how to write fiction' sources; it may well be that they absorbed the essential elements of writing from school and from reading. However, the real classics are set apart by the fact that they're inevitably different. 

You state that you can't learn to make shoes by buying and wearing them, and that's true. However, to suit your argument you've totally dismissed that many of us might buy those metaphorical shoes, find ones that are comfortable and long lasting, examine them in great detail, take them apart to consider their construction, look at how the leather has been cured and tanned and cut and stitched, make templates based upon what we've found, recreate those shoes and examine them against the originals, make subtle changes to see how that changes the fit and wear, use that knowledge to take other shoes apart and compare, try and try and try again until we're comfortable with the design process, then start making shoes, improving each pair until we end up with the shoes we really want.

That's what reading is to a writer, and I can see how anyone who doesn't read like that might disagree, but writers can learn all they need from reading.


----------



## Bayview (Jan 14, 2018)

There are different ways to learn to write, and, Jay, I'm glad your way worked for you. But I agree that you're making assumptions about other people's experiences that just aren't merited.

To start with, despite the fact that you state it in almost every post you make, it's just not universally true that we don't learn creative writing skills in high school classes. My high school English classes used a lot of great novels and short stories and poetry as teaching tools, and we absolutely looked at the structures and techniques the author used. I'm honestly not sure what English teachers would _say_ about these books if they weren't talking about structure and techniques... what did you guys talk about in your high school English classes?

But even if we didn't cover material explicitly in class, I still certainly knew the basic stuff you're mentioning, like POV and dialogue tags and whatever, just because I'd read loads of fiction (in class and on my own) and figured it out for myself. My understanding has obviously continued to evolve and will probably (hopefully!) develop further in the future, but the basic stuff? Covered.

There are different kinds of learners, obviously. I don't learn pure theory well--I need to apply it, test it out, figure it out for myself. When I get a new electronic device I don't read the instructions... I turn it on and start playing, and if I get stuck I'll go look for specific information. Other people read every word of the instructions before even touching the new device. Neither way is better than the other, and they both work fine for the people involved.

So... yes, at least some of us do learn a lot about writing while we're in high school English classes, and, no, there isn't just one way to learn to write.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jan 14, 2018)

I think most children's school experience nowadays differs considerably from yours and mine, Jay, but even so I filled whole exercise books with detailed analysis of Shakespearean comedies and Julius Caesar. Don't get me started on the purposes of public education  

Someone said 'That was your way of learning'. To me writing is a separate language. It uses the same words as speech, but has none of the tonal inflections, and punctuation acts as a crude guide at best to intention. Does ? indicate a genuine desire to know or one of the many other reasons people may have to ask a question? Without further explanation an attempt to illustrate a point or discover the depth of someone's understanding could be taken as a sarcastic response, writing requires a different sort of precision from speech.
It is these sort of factors that make writing a separate language, and as with all languages it can be learned from a very young age without concious understanding of its specialised grammars. If one comes to it late in life a formal understanding can help, just as it would learning French or German, but the truly fluent speakers will  always be Frenchmen and Germans, most of whom will know next to nothing about grammatical rules. I contend there are just such people writing, people who learned the skill from a parent or grandparent before their schooling ever began, people who have been reading and writing stories since their ealiest memories, developing the skill alongside their verbal skills rather than adapting verbal skills to it, and virtually unaware they are doing so.


----------



## JJBuchholz (Mar 17, 2018)

Stephen King once was quoted as saying that if you don't take the time to read, you'll never have the tools to write. I believe this holds true, and try to read a novel here and there, as well as most print that I can get my hands on. Reading and writing go hand in hand methinks.

-JJB


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 17, 2018)

> Stephen King once was quoted as saying that if you don't take the time to read, you'll never have the tools to write.


I can't remember who it was,  but this reminds me of  the person who asked, 'What advantage does the person who does not read have over the one who can not read?'
More and more I feel  that written English should be regarded as a different language from the spoken one, and how will you learn a language better than by using it?


----------



## Plasticweld (Mar 17, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> I can't remember who it was,  but this reminds me of  the person who asked, 'What advantage does the person who does not read have over the one who can not read?'
> More and more I feel  that written English should be regarded as a different language from the spoken one, and how will you learn a language better than by using it?



Olly, the other new language is texting and all the abbreviations and short hand that seems to be common knowledge to everyone but me.  I still have a flip phone and seldom text or use the phone for anymore than just talking, which makes me a caveman in today's world. 

To keep things in perspective I guess it helps to remember that only a small part of our communication is verbal.  I wonder what percentage it is of the written work and how often it is really used any more compared to years ago.... From google

Dr. Albert Mehrabian, author of Silent Messages, conducted several studies on nonverbal communication. He found that *7% of any message is conveyed through words, 38% through certain vocal elements, and 55% through nonverbal elements (facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc).*


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 18, 2018)

> 7% of any message is conveyed through words, 38% through certain vocal elements, and 55% through nonverbal elements (facial expressions, gestures, posture, etc).



Exactly why I see writing as different, everything has to be conveyed by words, or a limited punctuation system. Even ?, on the face of it unambiguous, can mean anything from 'Do you know?' to 'Really, you must be joking?' depending on tone of voice.


----------



## sas (Mar 18, 2018)

I've read that millennials are having difficulty at work because they are poor at reading body language, as even when they are with someone, they are communicating with someone else via phone. Men always were poorer than women at body language, so I suspect they now are totally clueless. Take advantage of this ladies...take your eyes off your phone and push through that glass ceiling.


----------

