How to write a book

[kyektulu]

I have come across many books about how to write since I have desired to be a writer. All of them basicly give the same advice :
plan your novel well, get to know your charecters intimatly, make sure your book has a biggining a middle and a ending and dont go off on a tangent/ keep your story clear and concise.

Do any of you take stock in these type of books?

I personally dont believe there should be so many books on the subject since they are all basicly the same.
I do admit to purchasing one or two before I had confidence in my own abilitys, now though I see they are stating the obvious.

Can the art of writing really be taught?
I dont know of any authors who had to be schooled in the subject before writing.

 

[Auer]

For myself one book has been very helpful in encouraging me in writing and not giving up. Stephen King's: "On writing. A memoir of the Craft".
I haven't been taught the art of writing, I have never studied literature or read any books about how to write a novel or a story - and I was terrible in in finnish at school .
I just have a very vivid imagination and I've read lots of fantasy novels and King's book just gave me a good example of how much one has to try and work for writing a novel.
And it has a very good point - If you don't have time to read, you don't have time, or the tools to write

 

[star_song]

I do not believe anyone can be taught to write, sure one could always learn the basics like spelling grammar etc. but if one has a vivid imagination and such or just a natural knack for it then they are a writer. as to reading a book on writing i think some of the books offer good advice about making it a profession but who is anyone else to tell me whether or not i am a writer? i think anyone could aspire to becoming a writer if given the right dedication, if you submit something and it is rejected ask what was wrong and fix it for next time, the more one practices the better one will become and eventually reach one's full potential.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I used to be very cynical about "how to write" books, but eventually took advice on specific books by specific published authors and/or editors.

I was surprised by how much key useful information could be contained in them - for example, I know one point I specifically learned was about a book is pushed along by internal conflict of characters, and the importance of using tension from this.

Afterwards, I looked at Dune - my personal favourite template on how to write a technically accomplished novel - and was able to use this concept to see how Frank Herbert had used this - his scenes have his characters facing conflicting throughts and mental struggles - ie, Paul Atriedes, not least his visions - and also how tensions were set up between internal character thoughts - not least in the early chapters between Jessica and Dr Yueh.

I also found information on use of viewpoint extremely useful, not least in being able to examine the technical application of each, and applying that to family works. Sometimes a writer can get away with an accidental foul in use of POV (I remember reading a George R R Martin novel where he fouled up once or twice on this), but it is definitely an issue I felt was of utmost importance to learn when not particularly certain on POV use.

It's also worth pointing out that the very first "how to write" book I read I felt very negatively about, because it effectively treated writing in a formulaic process, such as plot following a "w" diagram, etc. However, my negative reactions were naive, because even if you do not consciously set out to follow a formulaic approach, it is worth being able to be aware of how these approaches may apply to books that may not intend to be necessary formulaic - but also about how formulaic issues may need to apply, or be asked to apply, to a work in progress.

Overall, my personal advice would be to seek out "how to write" books from people you feel you can trust who have been involved in the publishing industry - especially in your genre.

2c.

ADDENDUM: My points above is that there are definite technical points about writing for a published market that I think aspirants aiming for those published markets can definitely benefit from being aware of.

However, the ability to tell a good story...that's another.

 

[terryweide]

I think that instructors, teachers, professors, coaches, etc., in good writing programs can teach beginning students the basics of writing, meaning plot, characterization, dialog, and description. Once students get past the beginning stage and become intermediate to advanced writers, it's going to be expected they've absorbed the lessons and have the ability to start producing good work on their own, without coaching, at least once in awhile.

For people who have developed advanced skills it then becomes a question of how bad do they want to be writers? Professionals have both the discipline and the desire to sit at a computer or a typewriter and write every day, sometimes 8 - 12 hours or more at a time. My point is, that even if someone has good ability, they may decide the writing life is not for them. They might be happier doing other things. If so, that should be fine as well.

Again, to me, being a writer is often a matter of how bad do you want it? If you'd rather be a writer than anything else, you will read books on technique to enhance your skills, and at least on occasion, will probably take classes or workshops with an instructor who is better than you are, just as a matter of course. I think writing is a lifelong learning process, and the best writers are continually doing things to upgrade their abilities.

Well, I'm seem to have gotten off on a tangent. All for the moment, best wishes, Terry

 

[littlemissattitude]

As others before me in this thread and elsewhere have said, the technical aspects of writing can be taught.

However, one cannot be taught how to have something to say. Technically correct prose is nice and everything, but if you've got 10 or 100 or 200 pages of technically correct prose that says absolutely nothing, what good is it?

 

[terryweide]

Littlemiss,

A good writing teacher should be able to provide exercises that will challenge and push his or her students to be creative. If all a writing teacher teaches is how to produce technically correct prose, they're not teaching writing. They're teaching grammar.

There are now countless university and college writing programs, and zillions of writing workshops out there. Some of these programs are very good, and some are not as good, but don't underestimate the ability of good instructors to motivate their students in the same manner a good athletic coach can motivate a sports team. A truly good writing instructor can get people to write things beyond what they considered their skill level to be, to write things they thought they couldn't. I've seen that done.

Yes, the basics of writing can be taught to people of at least average beginning ability. It's also not that hard to teach students exercises that will put them in touch with their own innate creativity. Which is not to say that every student in a given writing class will have the same level of ability. Some will be better than others, or produce better work, but that's true of any endeavor. It's also true, however, that the ones who may stick with it and eventually become published, may also be the ones whose work wasn't that polished in the beginning. That gets back to my point of how bad does someone actually want to be a professional writer? The ones with the most desire will eventually get there. I've seen that happen too, more than once. Simply because a writing teacher doesn't give you an A doesn't mean you're not any good. You might, if you keep with it, develop into a better writer than the teacher. Onwards...

One criticism I have of writing programs, however, is that some students can produce beautiful prose, poetry, non-fiction, screenplays, essays, etc., etc., as long as they are in a classroom or workshop setting, and as long as an instructor is making them do it. The minute you remove the instructor and tell them to go create good work on their own, many of them don't. They lose interest. The person who is going to become a professional writer ultimately doesn't need the coach. A coach or a classroom is there to give you a foundation and to get you started. Once you reach a certain level you either want to write or you don't. If you always need an external instructor to make you do it, you're not going to be a pro writer.

In regards to my own writing, once in awhile I still take a workshop. There's always somebody better who knows more about a given form or style than I do, or who can look at my work and suggest ways to improve it that I may not have thought of. Even if I reject such advice, it will probably force me to consider exactly why I've made some of the choices I have with my writing.

Well, those are my thoughts at the moment, best wishes, Terry

 

[Culhwch]

A very articulate and well-thought out post there, Terry, and I'd have to agree with most of it. I studied writing at university for four years, and I believe that I came out a far better writer than when I went in. That being said, I believe I had the basic skills down before starting, so I wasn't 'taught' how to write. Coached or developed are probably the best terms. [Sadly, I sorta fall into your category of 'not writing without a coach'. It's not that I've lost interest, it's more that I am currently lacking the drive to focus day-in, day-out on one piece of work. At uni I had deadlines, and now that I'm on my own timetable I've dropped off. I am hoping that I'm just in a bit of slump and the natural desire will come back. If not, I'll have to beat myself back into shape - finding a willing mentor would probably be the best option, to keep me producing work and to help me develop.]

As far as 'how to write' books are concerned, I've found them useful in the past, though I pick and choose what I take from them. Usually, I like books that are written by or feature interviews with writers I admire. I find the first-hand advice more useful than a 'What Is A Plot?', 'How Do I Write Dialogue?' format. In that vein I'd agree with Auer on King's On Writing, and the quote about reading giving you the tools to write. At uni so many of my classmates said they didn't read because they didn't have the time, and it showed in their writing. These were the people who didn't improve, 'cause they couldn't see the problems with their own work...

A little off topic, but;- I'm also of the opinion that if you want to become a better writer of fiction - or indeed prose of whatever brand it is that you write - everything you write should be done with the devotion and care you'd give to a story. I'm talking letters, emails, essays, book reports, instant messages, posts here, notes, shopping lists - okay, maybe not the last - but if you write using good grammar and good spelling and good punctuation and a little creativity in everything that you do, it's gonna naturally bleed into your work, and improve it. When I'm writing, I don't have to think about things like spelling and grammar, because they just come naturally, and that's not due to some innate ability - it's down to good practice. If I find spelling or grammar or punctuation mistakes in my first draft, I get angry at myself, because I truly believe that a second draft should be for fixing story, not technique.

As Brian would say, just my two cents. Or possibly only one with the current conversion rates...

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just to add, one thing that really struck out to me is in Carole Blake's "From Pitch to Publication", the London literary agent tells that of all the masses of manuscripts she receives, more than 90% fail basic standards of professionalism.

So to myself, what is required in terms of "professionalism" in the industry is absolutely essential to learn.

 

[terryweide]

I agree with Brian's comments. I think that in order to be successful as a writer, you have to submit manuscripts that are free of errors, cliches, holes in the plot, that are typed in a standard 12 point font, that are double spaced with your name and page number at the top of each page, and on and on. If you submit manuscripts that don't conform to the standards and that you never revised or edited for clarity or to catch obvious mistakes, you're just giving an editor, publisher, or an agent a reason to reject your work.

Along with knowing how to professionally prepare a manuscript, there was another point I wanted to raise in my above post. It slipped my mind at that moment, so I'll bring up now. That is that many professional writers have the discipline and the dedication to sit at a typewriter or computer and write for 8 -12 hours, or longer, each day. They'll do that day in and day out until their current project is complete. When that project or book is finished, they're already starting on the next one. In other words, if they're good, and they're getting paid, they don't go to work in a factory or an office. Writing is their job, and that's what they spend their time doing.

To be redundant, that goes back to my point about how bad does someone want to be a writer? I personally know at least two dozen or more people who have great writing skills, but who will never be professionals because they won't sit at a keyboard and write all day and then do it again tomorrow. That's part of what it takes. You want to be a writer? How often do you write, how much do you write, how polished and free of errors is it, how original is it, how often do you submit your work, and if someone were to buy a novel you had not yet finished, can you turn it on deadline? Writing, to me, is both an art and discipline, and the more you do it, and the more you talk to the professionals, the more you come to realize this.

Well, those are my thoughts for whatever they're worth. Best wishes, Terry

 

[star_song]

Most definately writing is something of a discipline for me as well. I have always believed this, the more one practices a talent, the better one becomes at it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just to add to Terry's points, one of the glaring issues of "lack of professionalism" that was also raised is that even if the text formatting is correct, if you then add a copyright notice to every page you are showing yourself to be amateur.

It's little things like that that apparently really stick out to an agent, and give every reason to bin a script.

 

[Stormflame]

Being taught the craft of writing is one thing. Having an idea and the imagination to put it on paper is a totally different ballgame!

 

[Tim Bond]

Is copywrite automatic...

or do you have to get that done before you send it in for reveiw?

Is theft of creative work by publishers at all a relivant
concern to a first time writter with no idea what to expect?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Copyright is treated different in different countries - in the UK, it's automatic (though proving ownership could be a different issue).

And if you are dealing with a reputable agent, you should absolutely not be concerned about creative theft at all - they have to deal with issues of trust everyday, and to presume otherwise would be to denigrate theprofessionalism of the agent.

However, in that regard, it is worth pointing out that sending off manuscripts direct to third parties, such as TV stations, production companies, etc, has a different set of risks involved - sure, they couldn't use a copyrighted script, but the ideas within a script themselves are not copyrighted...

 

[edott]

The best book i ever saw on this was how to write a murder mystery, mostly because more than half the book was simple reference material on how to describe a murder, technical names for common poisons, coroner terminology ect ect. really kind of neat.

 

[cornelius]

I started writing without having read any fantasy at all. I hadn't watch LOTR yet either. The only thing I had as resource were games. I came to see I was wrong, very wrong. The first writnings I had looked fine to a gamer, but to fantasy readers it was rubbish. The version of my writings on this forum has gotten ( a bit) better, since I'ce read and seen LOTR by now. Still, my story is to superficial to interest true readers. I am looking for ways to solve this, and I must say it is hard work. If you want to give comment on my writings, feel free to do so. You can take it down, pulverize it, smash it into pieces, but please add WHY you hate it. I Haven't had such critics so far ( maybe this is because the readers are a bit mild with a novice like me), but the more remarks I get, the more I can work on it. I don't really have a certain style, I'm just trying to put things the way I feel them.

this is the link ( no obligtion whatsoever, read it for fun, not because I told you to. Wouldn't want to waste your time)

http://www.chronicles-network.com/forum/8553-the-chronicles.html?highlight=chronicles

 

[Brys]

I agree with Brian's comments. I think that in order to be successful as a writer, you have to submit manuscripts that are free of errors, cliches, holes in the plot, that are typed in a standard 12 point font, that are double spaced with your name and page number at the top of each page, and on and on. If you submit manuscripts that don't conform to the standards and that you never revised or edited for clarity or to catch obvious mistakes, you're just giving an editor, publisher, or an agent a reason to reject your work.

Along with knowing how to professionally prepare a manuscript, there was another point I wanted to raise in my above post. It slipped my mind at that moment, so I'll bring up now. That is that many professional writers have the discipline and the dedication to sit at a typewriter or computer and write for 8 -12 hours, or longer, each day. They'll do that day in and day out until their current project is complete. When that project or book is finished, they're already starting on the next one. In other words, if they're good, and they're getting paid, they don't go to work in a factory or an office. Writing is their job, and that's what they spend their time doing.

Really? A lot of interviews I've seen suggest that this isn't the case for many writers - there are some who have other jobs than being a writer, because writing doesn't make them enough money, some just do lots of writing in the afternoon - some writers, probably the most prolific, do write 8-12 hours each day, but I don't think that's the most common scenario. Writing 8-12 hours a day may also be a pointless endeavour - because concentrating, and writing well, for that length of time is very difficult. Sure, you might be able to do that one day. And you might write 15,000 words in that time. But then the next day you might only write 150 words, which you write all in the first hour of doing it. There's not a lot of point in writing when you're not enjoying it at all - what you write would ultimately be a lot worse, and probably just need rewriting at a later stage. Writing isn't like an office job - it isn't consistent in the same way, it's hugely variable. Most writers don't write for that long every day, because they won't get as much done as writing when it suits them.
As for books on writing, I'm not sure. A lot of the articles I've seen on writing on the internet have been very good, but then there've been an equal number of awfl ones, and I don't think that an entire book is necessary. I find that my writing improves most from simply writing - the more I do, the better I get at it. Books, workshops etc may help a bit, but as is always said, write.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Writing 8-12 hours a day may also be a pointless endeavour - because concentrating, and writing well, for that length of time is very difficult. Sure, you might be able to do that one day. And you might write 15,000 words in that time. But then the next day you might only write 150 words, which you write all in the first hour of doing it. There's not a lot of point in writing when you're not enjoying it at all - what you write would ultimately be a lot worse, and probably just need rewriting at a later stage. .

I have to agree with this one hundred percent -- at least so far as the sitting at the computer and grinding out words part of writing.

But there are other things you can do to impact your writing that don't require the same level of creative thinking, and that should, in the long run, stimulate it. For me, most of what I do all day long is related to writing in some way. I read a novel, I'm noticing what works and what doesn't work. When I read something especially good, I'm always dog-earing pages or grabbing paper and pencil to make a note of particularly eloquent passages so that I can look at them again later. I read non-fiction and mentally file away snippets of information that may be of use later. Conversations about writing give me new ideas. Sometimes conversations about other things give me ideas that I think I might explore through my writing at some other time. When watching a TV program I analyze the plot.

I hope and believe that all this is more useful than sitting at my keyboard and producing words when I'm not emotionally and creatively engaged.

As for books on writing, I find that the more I know about writing the better I'm able to appreciate them. There are a certain number of things we can only learn by trial and error before we understand the writing process well enough to recognize and benefit from even the very best advice.

There is really no way around the fact that you have to produce a certain number of words (a number in the hundreds of thousands) in order to learn to write at a professional level. Reading books on writing is not any kind of a short cut. Anyone who opens up one of those books with that in mind is going to be disappointed. But they can be valuable in other ways.

 

[kyektulu]

There's not a lot of point in writing when you're not enjoying it at all - what you write would ultimately be a lot worse, and probably just need rewriting at a later stage.

That statement is very true, well said Brys.