Are we too precious about writing?

[Fishbowl Helmet]

You say "a skill like any other," but not every skill can be learned by everyone. We are all different, we all have different aptitudes, different strengths, different weaknesses. To say that there is any skill we could all learn to do serviceably is, I think, to deny that individuality. And it puts most skilled jobs on the level with scrubbing the floor. Besides, there has to be something inside you, some inner drive or compulsion to do one certain thing, some passionate love for whatever it is, that feeds that necessary patience, practice, and persistence -- instead of putting all of that energy into something you know will provide immediate satisfaction in the way of a guaranteed paycheck (at least while the job lasts). That drive, that passion, for whatever it is, is not magic, it's simply a facet of who we are as individuals. Other people have different passions that may provide the drive to acquiring the skills they want, the careers they want, or may simply make them passionate spectators, like the sports fan who knows all of the statistics and attends every home game.

To me it's more that our drives determine our focus. If we are driven to learn some skill we can learn it. Whatever that skill may be. Simple as that. Anyone is capable of learning any skill... if they have the drive necessary to do so. When someone says they 'can't' do something, I've found that it's most often a lack of motivation or desire. The person is often smart enough to learn the task, it's simply that they haven't sufficient desire to do so. So yes, everyone can, but not everyone will. The distinction between capacity and ability. Everyone is capable; not everyone is able. Everyone is smart enough; not everyone is determined enough. And in my experience that comes down to a measure of desire and drive more than anything else.

I think -- but perhaps I am wrong -- what Little Star is trying to describe is the difference between someone who dashes off a story quickly and considers it done, without taking any time at all for editing or polishing because they believe they are above that, and the person who writes at a very slow pace because they do a lot of editing as they go. I don't know if that makes them too precious about their writing, or not. That is, I believe in some cases that will be true, but in others not, and I would have to be acquainted with the writers and their work to figure out which is which. Some of us write more quickly, but then spend a year or two editing, revising, and polishing our work; others do edit as they go and it seems to work well for them. Still others are just fast. They write, they revise, they polish, all at a furious pace, and are still very good. But it is possible that if they slowed down they would be even better.

I'm talking about finishing a first draft, not a completely edited and ready to publish manuscript. For me, there's two clearly distinct steps: writing and editing. Writing is fast. Editing is slow. Editing takes time if done right. To write you have to stop editing; to edit you have to stop writing. Some writers go back and forth, sure, but that also explains why they think completing one novel a year is a daunting task. Because they're making themselves work so much harder than they need to. Treading and retreading the same ground instead of moving forward and fixing things at the end. Whilst I'm not sure I'd say it's wrong to revise as you go, it is a terribly inefficient means of producing a manuscript.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I don't think I am particularly compelled to write. I like developing stories and it's the easiest way to do it but I'm also happy making them in my head - stories I'll never share with anyone.

 

[Brian G Turner]

But yes, anyone and everyone can learn to string words together into a workmanlike sentence.

But that has nothing to do with the technical understanding of writing that's required to be a commercial-standard fiction author.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

But that has nothing to do with the technical understanding of writing that's required to be a fiction author.

Which is a set of skills, that can be learned.

Grammar, spelling, syntax? Can all be learned.

Setting scenes? Can be learned.

Active sentences? Can be learned.

Evocative description? Can be learned.

Engaging characterization? Can be learned.

Every single piece of this puzzle is a skill. Every one of those skills can be learned.

How do I know this? Because every other writer who's ever existed has had to learn these things. No writer was born knowing how to read, much less being able to write at all, much less knowing how to write a short story or novel. Each and every one of them had to learn how over time by reading voraciously and practicing their craft. Some people are driven to want to learn these things, others are not. But everyone can learn the skill set. There's a difference between desire and capacity. I'm simply saying everyone has the capacity, though not everyone has the desire.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

So there's no place for aptitude in this world? I have a brother, smart as can be. Not a reader. Not a writer. I can categorically say he would not learn any of those skills ever. But I can't learn his skills - he plays the guitar beautifully. I've tried learning, never got there. To say we can learn things regardless of our aptitude seems very rosy-glasses viewed to me.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

How do I know this? Because every other writer who's ever existed has had to learn these things.

And every person who isn't a writer didn't. Naturally every writer learned it, otherwise they wouldn't be a writer. How does that prove that other people could do it, too?

 

[Hex]

You know, what makes writers special and precious is what they can do.

I don't think I need to write but I absolutely need to read, and while writing may seem prosaic and unexciting to people who are confident writers, for me, the result is magical and astonishing. I remember reading Tombs of Atuan when I was a kid, or the first time I read a Robin McKinley, The Dark is Rising or Lloyd Alexander's Prydain books. How can the process that produces those kind of things be ordinary and work(wo)manlike? Really? There's something magical and true in there.

No matter how well I write a journal paper, it's not going to have the kind of impact a beautiful book has.

So, be precious about it, if you like. I don't care how people think about what they do. I just care what they write. Keep doing it.

 

[Nick B]

Which is a set of skills, that can be learned.

Grammar, spelling, syntax? Can all be learned.

Setting scenes? Can be learned.

Active sentences? Can be learned.

Evocative description? Can be learned.

Engaging characterization? Can be learned.

Every single piece of this puzzle is a skill. Every one of those skills can be learned.

How do I know this? Because every other writer who's ever existed has had to learn these things. No writer was born knowing how to read, much less being able to write at all, much less knowing how to write a short story or novel. Each and every one of them had to learn how over time by reading voraciously and practicing their craft. Some people are driven to want to learn these things, others are not. But everyone can learn the skill set. There's a difference between desire and capacity. I'm simply saying everyone has the capacity, though not everyone has the desire.

Most people could indeed learn those skills, however, not everyone, no matter how technically brilliant their knowledge of how to write, can tell a good story.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I just wanted to revisit the quick vs could be better analogy. I think, if you are quick, there is always a fear of cutting corners. Of being lazy and not fulfilling your full potential, partly because writing might be seen as a craft and therefore something to, um, craft over.

I think I'm one of the quickest Chronners at writing. But, for me, it's not just writing - I am quick at everything. I also take a lot of down time when I do very little because I came to terms with the fact I do everything ten times quicker than others and I exhaust myself if I don't stop sometimes. I post quickly, too - hence the post count and eating and sleeping connundrum.

So, could my work be better if I took my time? Possibly. But.... I'd never finish anything. I'd be bored honing and tweaking and it would get stultifying and my brain would go belly up.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do hone. I slave over sentences and paragraphs and scenes. I plan and look at scenes and revise. I've also learned to give space between drafts so that when I review - at speed - it's effective. But, the bottom line is - don't hate me - my average blog takes me 30 minutes to write, an 1000 story about an hour and a half (first draft, second, leave for a day, review). But my 30 minutes seems to be most other people's half a day, and that's not boasting, it just is.

So, what I'm trying to say is yes, if I slowed down there might be more depth. But it also might get overworked and sluggish because that's not the way my brain works. And to give some sort of solace to others who write quickly. It doesn't have to be shoddy provided you're thinking as you go, and prepared to let it sit before honing. Most of my novels have over 10 full rewrites, from scratch, over the space of a couple of years. Is that any less attention than someone going slower over five or six rewrites, or is it just different attention?

(And now I'm wondering if I've derailed my own thread. If so, mods feel free to shift this post to a new one. )

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I think I'm one of the quickest Chronners at writing. But, for me, it's not just writing - I am quick at everything. I also take a lot of down time when I do very little because I came to terms with the fact I do everything ten times quicker than others and I exhaust myself if I don't stop sometimes. I post quickly, too - hence the post count and eating and sleeping connundrum.
)

Mine depends on my ME but I am similar. I remember putting aside six weeks to plan my wedding and it took 3 days - I had venue, food planned, dress bought etc I didn't reach my potential because by the second year at high school I was bored stupid and I went to sleep.

It's amazing how many writers get angry with me for reading and writing fast. It came as a shock. Apparently the way I read is a mistake because you can't read War and Peace in about five hours. But I remember passages, I have opinions and understandings - also because I can read fast I have read it four times. You can't possibly write 40,000 words in a day - I'm not believed. But I'm honest about the days I only write 150 words or less as well.

I don't think my work would be better if I wrote slower. Writing quickly allows for deleting and rewriting -- it's not disheartening to delete 30,000 words when you can get it back in a week or less. And the rewriting adds a level of depth that wouldn't happen otherwise.

 

[Foxbat]

I'm not looking to make a career out of writing and I've no plans to write a novel. I write the odd short story and success, to me, is actually getting an editor to publish it.

I don't think being a writer per se makes you special but perhaps giving somebody some enjoyment with what you've created does.

Is it a hobby for me? No. But then again, neither is the music I write and record. It's something that I need to do and I don't really know why I put myself through it. If I did then maybe I could stop torturing myself with it. I actually stopped writing for quite a while but then it came back.

Perhaps there's a writing flu jab out there that I need.

P.S. The worst thing about writing for me is that I have to do most of it at around 0400 a.m.

 

[millymollymo]

How do I know I am a writer? Because I said so.
But. But. But - writer doubt says...
What about that pedestal we put our favourite authors on? Can 'we' ever be as good as them?
Is that why these "You know you are a writer" articles, gifs etc are popular? So you can tell yourself you're doing something right.

An actor/Drama student can spend years in schools and on stages - but someone sees their productions, audiences pay to watch. It is culture.
(You don't get 'novel students' or apprentice graphic novel writer' do you? No you are taught English at school, (which few are interested in) then on to Creative Writing Degrees & MAs which academia poo poos...)
If an artist (of any level) produces a painting. It can be hung on a wall in their house, in a local gallery people see it. Graffiti or Banksy? It's still culture.


You can sit at a desk for years and produce a novel that no market wants. Does that make you less of a writer? You wrote it didn't you?
Where do you display your 70000+ words? Is that culture? A piece of written work only gets elevated to that status when it has a cover.

Is it so you can be part of a group, not isolated in a corner with all the voices in your head?

Or is it because those that dream of being a writer will share that article with others who also dream allowing that ideal fantasy to be a marketable thing?
Leaving those that know 'practice makes perfect' to keep on at perfecting.

It is about knowing your own value. Not consensus of opinion.

But But But .....
Are you only a writer/author if you have made the best seller list?

We can play this writer game all day.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

To be an author is to have a relationship with one or more specific books/stories. That's all an author is: someone who wrote something. Maybe one thing, maybe lots of things. It really has nothing to do with whether it was good or whether it was published; you authored it. You could stop writing altogether, and still be an author ever after because you still have that relationship with your previous story or stories. In a way, an author is who you were, because it's about something you already did, not what you are doing now. A writer is someone who is writing now. (Not, you know, this minute now, but lately.) Of course you can be both, so long as you keep writing.

As I grow older, one of my greatest fears is that I will cease to be a writer and dwindle to a mere author. Being a writer is a lot more enjoyable than just being able to point to something you wrote years ago and say, "I wrote that."

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm simply saying everyone has the capacity, though not everyone has the desire.

You seem to be coming from an point of view that "anyone can achieve anything, if they set their mind to it", which is a wonderful ideal.

My life experience has been the opposite, though - that different people have different types of creative intelligence, and basic skills and concepts that one group might find easy another group might be incapable of.

Whether we agree or disagree on that point is irrelevant as the end result is the same - only some people will specialise in being writers, though some might experiment with it, and many others won't ever care for it at all.

 

[Toby Frost]

Leaving aside “phenomenon” books, which are often the product of marketing as much as anything else, it is necessary to hit a basic standard of English in order to write a book and to have the organisational and planning skills to get the book plotted out and written. This doesn’t have to be especially high. But – and this is important, I think – there is a group of people who are the literary equivalent of tone deaf, and will never produce anything decent. (It’s worth adding that I can think of at least one such writer who is extremely successful and rich). The plots will be predictable, the characters weak, the emotion corny and the dialogue clunky, perhaps with a crude moral message shoehorned in. These will be finished books, but they will be bad books, and always will be.

Add to that, the process of learning to write a decent novel is lengthy and difficult: it isn’t the case that you can be told what good dialogue is and instantly write it. As Brian says, even some people who could do this, and try to do it, will give up. So there is an element of weeding out going on here: writing a good book requires skill, determination and talent, as well as a lot of time and the strange attitude of being confident that you’re good while being keen to improve.

It is worth adding that none of this has any bearing on whether a book is published or sells a lot of copies. Overhyped crimes against literature like [insert title here] will continue so long as there are suckers out there willing to “see what the hype is all about”. But that isn’t the issue.

EDIt:
To go back to the original point: far more people like the idea of being a writer than are willing to do the work necessary to become a proper writer. Also, unlike playing a musical instrument, you can’t instantly be found out to be rubbish, so it’s easier to keep the pose up. I don’t think it’s something that you can “dabble” in, to be honest: even if your output is low, or you don’t write often, you need a degree of commitment to write well. No doubt it’s the same with painting, or learning judo, or playing the trombone – but it’s easier to be caught out doing those.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

With writing, you do have more time to get it right, to make corrections. There is that advantage. With some things, you have to decide in the moment what you will do, and if it's wrong, you don't get to ask for a do-over.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Fair enuff! I am yet again bested by Mr Palmer.

not intentionally, I assure you!

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I think, also, in response to Toby's point about more people wanting to write - it's because they already do and so perceive it to be easy. By that I mean, they have been taught the basic skills at school and know basic grammar and spelling (mostly...) Also, reading a book makes it seem easy. So they say well I can already write, and it's easy so I'll do it. Whereas unless we actually set out to learn music at some stage, or to develop skills in art, we didn't go there and so we have the belief we can't do it.

I'm not sure how clear that is but basically because we were taught to write, we think we have the skill and it should be easy whereas we don't feel that way about other skills because we don't have them in place and believe we can do them intrinsically.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

So we're back to career aspirations. Interesting one, about the creativity feeling very different from more obviously mundane work tasks. I appreciate I'm not far down the path to becoming an author but, frankly, there are days when writing is no more exciting that designing powerpoints for me.

If there's one thing I've learned in the last 3-4 years it's that I can't now write slowly, without that mad, breathless rush of doing 5,000 words a day and nothing else, except eat and sleep. It's why I pretty much only write during college holidays. I have to have that initial craze of excitement of 'first discovery' - and that is what you have to convey to your reader. Best way is to convey it to yourself at the same time.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

I think, also, in response to Toby's point about more people wanting to write - it's because they already do and so perceive it to be easy.

I think they perceive it as a route to fame. The modern disease.