# I Don't Care About Your MFA: Writing Vs. Storytelling



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

Figured I'd share this here. It's something to keep in mind when the words aren't coming out so easily: focus on story. Article: Writing Vs. Storytelling.

**A couple f*** bombs included**


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 21, 2016)

Caged Maidens long lost twin sister?


----------



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

ThinkerX said:


> Caged Maidens long lost twin sister?



No way. Maiden is way more maidenly.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 21, 2016)

Wait, what? The f-bombs?


----------



## ThinkerX (Dec 21, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> Wait, what? The f-bombs?



No, more the description of her writing.  Lots of words, lots of description, interesting characters...

better stop while I'm behind.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 21, 2016)

Ironically, the author of that article spent many years learning how to "write" before learning how to tell stories.  So we'll never know by her example if learning how to be a storyteller is simply enough, without also learning how to write well. Heh.

I don't know.  I've never been anywhere close to getting an MFA.  Probably I could have learned whether to use "a" instead of "an" there; yes, this troubles me hah.  If I pronounce the letters, it's "an."  But if I read out the full words, it's "a."  This happens to me here on MS whenever I type "MC."  So is it "an MC" or is it "a MC?"  I've troubled myself worrying about that more than once when writing out a comment.  [The author of that article used "an MFA."  Yep, I double-checked myself this way.]

I think that the importance of leaning how to tell stories, for those who want to write fiction at least, cannot be overstated, and that telling stories is about more than learning how to write pretty sentences and wallowing in _feeling_...For me, this goes without saying, but I don't suppose there's any harm in saying it as well.


----------



## Russ (Dec 21, 2016)

There is actually value in getting an MFA.  It is a terminal degree and offers up lots of teaching opportunities.

Did I miss something or did the author never study in an MFA program?  Some of them are actually designed to teach storey telling and get published as their primary component.  I actually know one successful writer who has a masters in Storytelling.

When I taught in a fiction MA program (which is now an MFA program but was not when I was there) there was almost no emphasis on basic grammar or sentence structure.

I am left with the impression that the author is not  very familiar with what is taught in graduate writing programs these days.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

Both are important, I think (decent prose with good storytelling). Very. Without clear prose, readers can't access your story. But I also am in the camp that story should come first, and that should be the focus from the beginning. By all means, study grammar and spelling and how to tie story elements into your prose. But also study story structure. And I think that may be what she was getting at--

Instead of focusing on writing rules and proper grammar, sometimes we need to just let the story do what it needs to do: short sentences, one word sentences, adverbs, italics, ellipses, etc. Whatever tool is going to allow the writer to tell the story they want to tell without focusing on pretty yet meaningless words. 

Ages ago, I was part of a fantasy writing group and one of the gals was this type of writer. Her words were like poetry, yet they didn't say much of anything. It was a real shame because she loved to write, but her stories were boring. I have no idea what happened to her but I do hope she's snapped out of it.

Far as the MFA goes, you don't need it to be a fiction writer. I think that one is pretty obvious. But I've come across writers who've gotten MFAs and don't have much good to say about it. Maybe it depends on where you study? Idk. Professional fiction writing can be accomplished without an MFA, all you need to learn is how to tell a bomb story. I agree with her on that. 

But don't ask me what I think about degrees. My Biology & Poli-Sci degrees are languishing for eternity.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Probably I could have learned whether to use "a" instead of "an" there; yes, this troubles me hah.  If I pronounce the letters, it's "an."  But if I read out the full words, it's "a."  This happens to me here on MS whenever I type "MC."  So is it "an MC" or is it "a MC?"  I've troubled myself worrying about that more than once when writing out a comment.  [The author of that article used "an MFA."  Yep, I double-checked myself this way.]



If it's a vowel _sound_ you use "an."  So you have a house but an honorary degree, because the "h" is silent in the latter.  You can get "an MFA" because "M" sounds like "em," but it "a UFO" because "U" sounds like "you."


----------



## FifthView (Dec 21, 2016)

Devor said:


> If it's a vowel _sound_ you use "an."  So you have a house but an honorary degree, because the "h" is silent in the latter.  You can get "an MFA" because "M" sounds like "em," but it "a UFO" because "U" sounds like "you."



I usually use "an" in those cases, but if "MFA" sounds like "Master of Fine Arts," then...This is probably more of a problem for me in the informal forum setting, because "MC" is sometimes just shorthand for "main character."  I tend to read/pronounce "MC" as "em-see" when reading or writing a comment, so I opt for "an MC."  But not everyone does.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 21, 2016)

Oh, F-bomb, yeah. I learned to write, but I'm just now learning to tell a story. Sad. What a mess. HA!


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2016)

Chessie at first I wanted to hate the article (having a degree in English lit) but I agree with it 100%. Story is what matters. Being able to write clearly enough to get the story out is important, but without good story writing is pointless. 

I do think that having a degree in literature is helpful, vs. A degree in fine arts only because I spent five years studying story, not writing. I mean, I had to write essays, but they were an analysis on a story... structure, characterization, foils, symbols... basically dissecting story to see why it worked. And when we were taught writing we were taught "keep it clear and simple" because we were being taught how to write essays. How to make a clear argument, which I actually find more helpful now, writing fiction lol.. because I find it's the exact same thing, being clear and concise trumps being abstract and poetic any day. 

So if a young person wanted to take something in university to help their writing career I would suggest a degree in  lit over one in fine arts. But that is my personal bias lol.  

Otherwise, I felt this article was bang on. 

But then I believe "stories" are intricately made emotion machines. They are Swiss watches of precise gears and spinning wheels that make them tick. You have to be able to take them apart and put them back together again. (Blake Snyder, Save The Cat). And all that involves understanding the formulaic structure of plot... which I know is a contentious issue on this site... so I will show myself out now.


----------



## buyjupiter (Dec 21, 2016)

Russ said:


> There is actually value in getting an MFA.  It is a terminal degree and offers up lots of teaching opportunities.
> 
> Did I miss something or did the author never study in an MFA program?  Some of them are actually designed to teach storey telling and get published as their primary component.  I actually know one successful writer who has a masters in Storytelling.
> 
> ...



I think the big impression most folks have of MFA programs is the arrogance that sometimes comes with it. A lot of authors that I've tried [especially modern lit authors] that overly emphasize getting the MFA I think are twits and arrogant a-holes. I hardly ever make it through one of those kind of books. [The exception being Lev Grossman. That MFA served him well.]

I'm also saying this coming from reading for one of the SFF magazines, and making minor editorial decisions, that the more the person emphasized receiving an MFA the worse their actual idea to story ratio was. Great ideas, terrible story execution, but put in very acceptable grammatically correct writing. I had a devil of a time going "can I pass this up to the editors without there being an actual story here?", because clever writing is clever writing. Nothing more. And it doesn't make up for the flaws in the story.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2016)

The arrogance doesn't come from the degree or from the study itself. Some people are arrogant. Some arrogant people go to university. Some go into business or the military or the clergy. None of those fields cause arrogance.

I confess I am unaware of the degrees of any author, except by chance. It's hard to miss, for example, that Tolkien was a full professor. (a favorite line from my major professor: Him: "Are you a full professor?" Her: "After a good meal, yes.")

Otherwise, though, I pay no attention. Doesn't seem to have affected my reading enjoyment index much.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2016)

There is so much jealousy seeping through the words in that article, it's hard to take much of it seriously. It's another writer who feels she writes better than some successful writers, and is looking for something to blame. She really listened to people claim the only way you could write was to get a teaching job? Where did she think movies and books come from? *shakes head*

As Russ said, there is much value in an advanced university degree, especially in one where writing is a key component. That will be true in most of the humanities, so I would recommend pretty much anything that comes out of English, Philosophy, Rhetoric, and of course that Queen of the Humanities, History. I would steer any writer away from the hard sciences or the social sciences, for in those fields writing is neither craft nor art but an unavoidable adjunct to the primary activity.

The whole writing vs storytelling is a false dichotomy. It's like arguing brush technique is less important than composition. Or that songwriting is more important than learning chord structures. All are part of the craft. How does it benefit any of us to value one over the others? Except to fuel a blog post, of course.

*harumph*


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2016)

I did agree with skip on the jealousy factor. I saw the green eyed monster in much of the post as well.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2016)

Russ said:


> There is actually value in getting an MFA.  It is a terminal degree and offers up lots of teaching opportunities.



I've been reading a lot about creativity of late.  For everything that an MFA might be worth, there is also a reason that many people are successful without one, and that many people do not get very far in publishing with one.

The more you know about something, the less creative you are - or at least, there's a curve that suggests your creativity will peak long before you finish an MFA.  At some point you end up _learning_ the answers instead of _innovating_ the answers.

There's a lot to learn in an MFA, and there's more to writing than creativity, of course.  But those degrees are a double-edged sword.  And writing is one of those fields where that drawback can hurt.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2016)

>The more you know about something, the less creative you are

I don't buy this one at all, sorry. As an academic, I do recognize that I spent most of my professional career in expository rather than in creative writing. So I would buy the argument that pretty much any graduate-level work is going to emphasize the former rather than the latter. 

But I don't believe creativity is some delicate flower easily crushed by the blundering beast of formal learning. Creativity is as tough as a badger. It does not die. I side with Hemingway and others who essentially said, if you can quit writing, you aren't a writer.

Nor do I believe learning the mechanics of a craft lessens one's ability to innovate in that craft. The facts simply don't bear it out. True, any number of people in a field go into it thinking they are going to be creative and revolutionize their world, only to find out they are merely mortal, after all. But I still say that's on them. One can blame the education, but doing so misses the mark.

That said, I do think it is a mistake to go into some graduate program thinking that it's somehow going to make you more creative. It isn't. You will learn technique. That's it. You can learn technique outside of school as well. Most of the time, it's a less efficient and reliable a path, but many have trodden it with success.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I did agree with skip on the jealousy factor. I saw the green eyed monster in much of the post as well.



We all have the green-eyed monster. It's part of being human. Let's not kid ourselves here.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> >The more you know about something, the less creative you are
> 
> I don't buy this one at all, sorry. As an academic, I do recognize that I spent most of my professional career in expository rather than in creative writing. So I would buy the argument that pretty much any graduate-level work is going to emphasize the former rather than the latter.
> 
> ...



It depends on the person, I believe. Anchorage is an artist town. The joke is that you either know a musician or someone with a gallery. I've known several artists that went to school for the arts: photography, sculpting, drawing, etc. All of those people either make a living from their art or earn part time money. Are those Art degrees different than MFAs? Again, it depends on the individual and where they study.

Writing, though, is an art too and it can't necessarily hurt to take an MFA if that's what you're interested in. My idea always was to work for Fish & Game while writing on the side. It didn't work out that way. So were my degrees useless? Kind of. It all depends what it's worth to you (degrees, that is). I say it can't hurt but it's not necessary either.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> >The more you know about something, the less creative you are
> 
> I don't buy this one at all, sorry. As an academic, I do recognize that I spent most of my professional career in expository rather than in creative writing. So I would buy the argument that pretty much any graduate-level work is going to emphasize the former rather than the latter.
> 
> ...



I agree with Skip. I don't believe it to be a double-edged sword for a minute. 

We can look at other charts (like the Dunning-Kruger effect) that says the less a person knows about something the more confident they are.... the more you learn the less confident you get until you become a master and that confidence comes back.

I've seen it a hundred times where someone with very little skill in story writing thinks they are the most creative person in the universe... until they actually start to learn about what it takes to write a real story. Then they realize pretty quick that it takes a lot more than creativity.  

Creativity alone does not make a person a writer, or an artist, or a computer programmer. You have to develop the skills and the techniques along with the creativity. Educating yourself will only help that, not deter it. Whether you do that youself, or in a classroom, is up to you but at some point it needs to be done.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2016)

I'm sorry Skip, but I'm not making this up.  Learning is a barrier to creativity, and that's in the research.  Creativity is the process of _making_ an answer, often the wrong answer.  If you spend too much time _learning_ the answers, even the right answers, you're not developing that _making-the-answer_ skill.  With a PHD you learn all the answers, but you don't develop your own creative skills.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 21, 2016)

Devor said:


> I'm sorry Skip, but I'm not making this up.  Learning is a barrier to creativity, and that's in the research.  Creativity is the process of _making_ an answer, often the wrong answer.  If you spend too much time _learning_ the answers, even the right answers, you're not developing that _making-the-answer_ skill.  With a PHD you learn all the answers, but you don't develop your own creative skills.



Hahahahahahahahahahahhaha.... Are you kidding me? You are kidding, right? Do you have a PhD? You do realize the point of a PhD is to create your own thesis? To prove you own ideas and thoughts? To branch out from what has already been done and show a new idea and defend it? 

I'm sorry, Devor. That is simply, just, not, true.


----------



## Devor (Dec 21, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Hahahahahahahahahahahhaha.... Are you kidding me? You are kidding, right? Do you have a PhD? You do realize the point of a PhD is to create your own thesis? To prove you own ideas and thoughts? To branch out from what has already been done and show a new idea and defend it?
> 
> I'm sorry, Devor. That is simply, just, not, true.



Okay, sure, if you say so then.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

Honestly, I just posted this as a way of encouraging others to focus more on story and less on the words. Sometimes we get stuck on everything needing to sound and look perfect and forget the bigger picture. Every writer is different. Follow your own creative process. If that means studying it at college level then that's a personal choice. I would never deter anyone from continuing education. But there are also other ways to learn storytelling outside of the classroom. Freedom of choice is something I highly respect.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 21, 2016)

ThinkerX said:


> No, more the description of her writing.  Lots of words, lots of description, interesting characters...
> 
> better stop while I'm behind.



And here I thought you were refering to the picture. Funny how all 3 of us thought entirely different things.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2016)

I would be interested to see the research, Devor, if you can provide some references. It certainly goes against my personal experience.

As a writer who is also a historian with PhD, I absolutely recognize that grad work focuses one in different ways. I said something to that effect already. I also know that I could not have written Altearth stories without such a deep background and, had I lacked that, I'm reasonably sure I would not have written anything to completion. One of the things grad school teaches you is how to finish. I guess I should be more specific: it's what graduate work in history teaches you. I cannot speak to other disciplines, though I have my suspicions and prejudices.


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 21, 2016)

>It all depends what it's worth to you (degrees, that is)

True dat. I have always told my students not to go on in history because they want a job. They should go on only if the actual graduate work _in itself_ seems worth the expense and effort. It's not about the degree, it's about the study spent getting there.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Dec 22, 2016)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that learning opens up more opportunities for creative _expression_. The more you know, the more tools you have to work with in shaping the ideas that you do have. I have many more ideas floating through my brain than I can ever do anything with. If I'd learned earlier in my life more of what I know now and am still learning about the craft of writing, I could have done more with my ideas and _probably_ would have written a full-length novel by now _that I felt was publishable_. I've written several novels and short stories that I chose not to publish, because they lacked _something_. I didn't have the training at the time to know exactly what was lacking. The feeling that something was lacking only motivated me to read more and more books, magazines, and eventually blogs and forums on the subject of writing.

A big part of the reason why I'm on this forum is to continue to learn. Another reason I'm here is to share what I've learned, with the hope that some of what I say may be of value to someone else -- regardless of what stage I'm at in my own writing journey. A third reason I'm here is because fantasy is in my blood, and I'm hoping to become a welcome part of a community specifically geared towards writing fantasy fiction. I'm still not sure how that is going, what with being called a fraud in another thread, because I "haven't done it yet." Someone with an MFA who hasn't published a novel yet would be a fraud then too? Anyone who is trying to write has a right to go about it in their own damn way. Get an MFA if you want. Don't if you don't. Sit and write for ten hours a day or just one hour a day or one hour a week or one hour a year. Study however much you want or don't study at all. If you're trying, if you have some experience, it might be worth something to someone else, but only if you share.

You can have lots of ideas and be highly creative, but you still have to execute your ideas, and that's where knowledge of what works in the craft and what doesn't comes into play. Again, this is my opinion only, but it's based on five decades of reading and writing fiction and over three decades of self-study on the craft of writing.


----------



## FifthView (Dec 22, 2016)

I think that students are like horses.

Some will drink.  Some won't.

Some will drown.

I think that on the one hand, generalizations always seem to have a dishonest heart.  But on the other hand, that, too, would be a generalization.


----------



## Devor (Dec 23, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> I would be interested to see the research, Devor, if you can provide some references. It certainly goes against my personal experience.



Yeah, I'll post a source.

Research Reveals Your Expertise Can Undermine Your Success | Inc.com


----------



## skip.knox (Dec 23, 2016)

Thanks, Devor. What that article provides is a couple of anecdotes, a whole lot of unsupported extrapolation, and an article about getting research grants in medicine. Seems pretty far from the current discussion. But this ain't the place for quarreling. The other guy is always entitled to his opinion, just so long as I get to enjoy my Truth. ;-)


----------



## Devor (Dec 23, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> Thanks, Devor. What that article provides is a couple of anecdotes, a whole lot of unsupported extrapolation, and an article about getting research grants in medicine. Seems pretty far from the current discussion. But this ain't the place for quarreling. The other guy is always entitled to his opinion, just so long as I get to enjoy my Truth. ;-)



Yeah, it's not my original source, which I wasn't able to find.  But they did talk about their research finding that expertise makes you more negative towards new ideas, which lines up spot-on with my experiences.  And if you google "barriers to creativity," you'll see that learning is prominently listed among them, because established behaviors and ideas often have to be broken in order to find innovation.

If you look deeper into the science of creativity, you'll see that it's a skill, on par with intelligence, that very few people are taught to hone effectively.  If you spend your time in a Master's Program, not only are you learning behaviors that are difficult to break, but there's the opportunity cost of losing time that a writer would otherwise spend honing their own creative abilities.

I'm not saying, and have not said, that an MFA has no value, even to a writer.  I'm only saying that expertise has a downside in making people resistant to new ideas in their field.  It hampers creativity.

Finally, creativity happens the most in people for whom worlds collide.  For instance, to take you as the example Skip, you could bring your expertise in history into the fantasy genre, and potentially make solid, innovative use of it there. BUT, I wouldn't expect you to be very creative inside the field of history - in fact, I imagine a lot of creativity in your field is frowned upon.  Focusing heavily on one field, writing, doesn't open up worlds.

I honestly believe that almost anyone who reads much about creativity as an academic subject would argue that a high-level degree in writing would make you a less creative writer - stronger in other ways, perhaps, but generally less innovative in your field.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Dec 24, 2016)

I don't want to argue anything academic because I am not an academic, but a creative soul with no amount of consistency or structure to almost everything I do. For me, the more I learn, the more creative I feel I am. When I first started writing, I dreamed up some stuff and I wrote it down, but it's all shit and should never be read, ever. But fifteen years later, I've learned a lot about writing, and am currently on a strict diet of story-telling learning ONLY, and just recently, I think I've finally broken through my own barriers and gotten truly creative. 

I was hampered by my own feelings--this is what it SHOULD feel like to write, this is what a REAL writer does, this is what I HAVE to do in order to get better, etc. and on and on. I wasn't creative, I was constantly bound by rules I didn't understand, afraid of doing the wrong things because I didn't know what was right or wrong.

Now, I've spent the last year trying to be MYSELF for the first time, the thing I would probably consider the LEAST creative thing I've done since beginning this journey. Yet...I'm definitely being honest, and folks are seeing it as creative. Or clever, at least. I don't think "creative" is a word I hear very often (but then again, having written something "creative" feels an awful lot to me like "having a nice personality" which is shorthand for "got nothing nicer to say"). Either way, what is considered creative? I think that's where this conversation is getting messed up. Was I more creative when I was throwing shit on a page without any guidelines? It was still shit. No one would have read it and remarked about my creativity, they would have called it what it is. And I do understand we're talking about MFA, an advanced degree, and I'm not a college student, let alone a graduate, so my personal experiences are in somewhat a more "life experience" direction.

I love gardening, and I'm a costumer. I've been gardening since I was a kid, and I've been sewing for more than 20 years. The first thing I do when I sew something is open up the pattern, look at what's there, and immediately decide what to keep and what to throw out. True. I totally throw out the instructions about every time I make something. In fact, I usually don't use patterns at all. Is it creative? No. I'm an expert. I don't need patterns for some stuff. I know what a sleeve looks like, how to make a skirt fit, how to tailor pants. I don't need a pattern to tell me where to cut or how big to make a dart. I don't use pins for cutting, either. It's just time-wasting to me. When my friends come over to sew with me, or learn how to make something, I look like a nut case, I'm sure, crawling around on my floor, cutting things with no pins, no markings, and using what I call "patterns" (usually scraps of paper I've drawn with markers and which contain no markings or seam allowances or anything). But I can pretty much do whatever I want. If I want to gather something, I add in what looks like the right amount to get the shape I'm after, and I don't worry about what the pattern looks like. If I want to change a sleeve, lengthen a leg, shorten a bodice, I just do it. I don't need paper to tell me what to do. Same with tailoring. I don't care where commercial patterns put seams or darts. If I want them someplace else, I do it. I love getting a unique look by moving seams. But could I do any of that stuff if I wasn't already super experienced? Nope.

Now, gardening...there's something that sounds wholly creative, and yet, the more creative I am, the worse it turns out. I wish I was more knowledgeable and less creative. Last year, I planted things in all kinds of weird locations. When I was young, I planted an invasive species in a small corner of the garden and they took over the yard, edging out the grass in places. Oops. I plant things too late because I'm "inspired" to plant on a given day. I mix things and don't pay attention to what needs which kind of light, because I just get creative and decide I like certain colors together. Basically, my garden is a mess and it looks like my early books. Chaotic and disarrayed. I mean, I get plenty of crops for my table, but deep down I know if I gave it a whole lot more effort, my garden would be more productive and more beautiful, and maybe the envy of my neighbors. But honestly, I don't care enough. I can't keep it all straight in my head, I get disappointed when a crop gets decimated by bunnies or aphids, and I don't have the personal drive to become a plant expert. So every year is a crap shoot and I put in just enough effort to enjoy myself without risking my feelings if things go ass up by the second month of summer. 

Writing is like any other endeavor. You must decide what effort to give, what you want to know, what you want to do, and how much to follow or break the rules. For years I've been writing like I sew, but the major difference is that I have to WEAR the shit I sew, and when I have things that don't work out so well, I rip seams, alter garments, sell things off to other people who the garment actually fits, etc. and with writing, the final product is meant to be enjoyed by someone other than me. So, I have to keep that in mind. I can't liquidate a book I made from the wrong fabric and now don't want to iron incessantly. I can't find someone who will use a mediocre story as a LARP accessory a few times a year, and it's worth the price to them. 

I want to learn more about story-telling and writing so I can break the rules spectacularly and with a purpose. It's a whole hell of a lot better than blundering around like an idiot (which I'm sure I still am), because I don't have a clue what I'm doing (because I don't). To me, creativity should have a purpose.


----------



## Devor (Dec 24, 2016)

Caged Maiden said:


> Either way, what is considered creative? I think that's where this conversation is getting messed up. Was I more creative when I was throwing shit on a page without any guidelines? It was still shit.



Fair question.

Typically we say _creativity_ to mean "different," and _innovation_ to mean "different but useful/better," although they're often used interchangeably to mean the second.

Most research on creativity is based on organizations, where you can take experts from different fields, put them together, and come up with something creative.  Even if they aren't creative in their fields on their own, they can cross worlds as a group to produce innovation.

There's a common trend in two-person teams where one person would be wacky and creative, and the other person would have the role of reigning it in and focusing that creativity into something more innovative.  If I were to hire a ghostwriter to write a novel, for example, I would probably consider an MFA a huge plus for that reason.

But writing usually tries to put everything on one person, so your personal creative skills count a lot more.  You've got to play both roles - the wild and wacky, and the reigning in.

If a person has a high level of creativity, meaning "different," but lacks many of the other skills involved in transforming that creativity into innovation, their writing would suck, no question.  On the other hand, somebody who lacks creativity, but possesses all the other skills, would have a lot of trouble standing out from the rest of the field.

((edit))

I wanted to add, though, that creativity is at its best when there's a real problem, when there are limits, and _not_ just on that high-end concept level.  For instance, let's say you have a character who's a janitor, and you want that character to stand out a little more developed.  A creative idea, for example, might be having that character carry a set of brass knuckles because he works a second job as a bouncer, although "they're just for show, people like a touch of danger and tension before they let loose in the club." That little thing could open up a lot of opportunities for the character.

Despite the language, being creative isn't necessarily about being super "out-there" and wacky on an Alice in Wonderland drug trip. In fact, the more narrow the question, you more you need those creative skills.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 24, 2016)

My goal for 2017 is to write at pulp speeds and see where that takes my creativity. I'll let you guys know if I crash and burn. 

As for Maiden's question, which I love btw because the conversation is really about creativity, I say write what moves you and do it at YOUR own pace, with your own process. Every writer is different. We don't write the same stories or even have the same process. This is why rules--what rules? I once got slack here for saying I don't rewrite. Ha. I don't. But my process is what works for me, and my worst work has come out of intensive rewriting sessions. My best work is created by a daily sitting session where I let my gut, characters, and story drama evolve as it will. I revise and edit as I go along, then the script goes through copyedits etc after. Another writer will work best in a different way, with a process of their own. This is why there aren't any rules except "produce your best work always at any given time".


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

This is a really interesting discussion. Or it looks like it. I have t actually read everything that was said. So I'm sorry if I'm totally off on what this discussion is about but...

I think something that's often overlooked is that creativity is a practice. People almost universally think of creativity as something you either have or don't have. That's not true. It's a skill that can be honed and developed. It's a way of thinking and viewing the world and living, really. 

But is learning, even academic learning, in any way antithetical to creativity? Hell no. 

I do think that a standardized approach to learning skills and applying them can inhibit creativity. I believe that our society's emphasis  on efficiency and productivity...really, the values of our society as a whole can abridge creativity. Altogether I don't think the academic world is a very fertile environment for fostering creativity.  

But I don't think that being more educated makes you less creative. Expanded knowledge will, if anything, make a creative person more creative. Now, I do think to retain your creativity at a healthy level you'll have to maintain some level of nonconformity to the rules, which will be detrimental to you while pursuing education. You'll have to prevent your education from training your brain to follow only certain channels. So maybe there is a conflict there. But I still think learning about writing can really help a writer. Learning about ANYTHING.  

But does being more educated make you MORE creative? The answer is no, I'm afraid. 

Since creativity is a skill that can be improved, it's strange how we don't teach it. Teaching writing seems to be all about mechanics, but why can't we teach creativity? It would have to be a whole lot different than normal teaching, I think, which might be the problem...

But I'm not even in college yet so what do I know. 

Speaking of not being in college...

That article (which the discussion seems to have swerved away from quite a bit?) made me think about stuff. (Teen angst? I'm not THAT petty and angsty, am I? I don't think I've ever been angry at the whole world for not recognizing my 'genius'. For real!) I want to go to college, but I have no idea what I want to do with my life other than write, so...I've always assumed I would study creative writing or something, but I do NOT want to be an English teacher.

So I'm thinking about what field of study would help me most as a writer. Maybe an English major isn't necessarily it?


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

I actually don't feel like this writer ever got over her teen angst, lol. She's still just pissed off that everyone is getting more recognition than her, it sounds like. 

This is the part that scares me. When I read about people who are making a living writing, usually it seems like they no longer are enjoying it. They're no longer making art that comes from the soul, it sounds like. They're just putting stories together to please an audience and it sounds like...a really thankless existence. I mean, why do these people seem so angry-but-resigned when talking about their story? This lady is definitely at least a little bitter and angry-sounding. It always sound like the story of "How I Let Go of Creativity and Inspiration and Learned To Reduce Writing to a Dull Audience-Pleasing Science." It always sounds like publishing beat the joy of writing and producing your own ideas right out of them...

Maybe if the tone of all these testimonies from published writers wasn't so...vaguely bitter I would feel better about it. 

Maybe this is just my teen angst showing but it makes me dread being published. I feel like this is why sincere originality is so hard to find on the market. Writers bowing to the almighty dollar...It's not like we don't all have to eat (I too would rather not starve/live on ramen noodles) but still. Geez.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 24, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I actually don't feel like this writer ever got over her teen angst, lol. She's still just pissed off that everyone is getting more recognition than her, it sounds like.
> 
> This is the part that scares me. When I read about people who are making a living writing, usually it seems like they no longer are enjoying it. They're no longer making art that comes from the soul, it sounds like. They're just putting stories together to please an audience and it sounds like...a really thankless existence. I mean, why do these people seem so angry-but-resigned when talking about their story? This lady is definitely at least a little bitter and angry-sounding. It always sound like the story of "How I Let Go of Creativity and Inspiration and Learned To Reduce Writing to a Dull Audience-Pleasing Science." It always sounds like publishing beat the joy of writing and producing your own ideas right out of them...
> 
> ...



So, from your impression of this one author, you assume that all writers making a living from their fiction aren't making "art"? Lol. 

You can't...just...no. Nope. Sweeping generalizations like that are the reason publishing myths prevail. Many full-time writers love what they do. I've definitely never met one that hated what they did.

Furthermore, in order to make a living writing books, you have to write a lot of them. That's how you stay afloat. Books= time = $$. You do realize that writing to an audience of people who have $$ is what keeps authors fed, right? ...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

Chessie said:


> So, from your impression of this one author, you assume that all writers making a living from their fiction aren't making "art"? Lol.
> 
> You can't...just...no. Nope. Sweeping generalizations like that are the reason publishing myths prevail. Many full-time writers love what they do. I've definitely never met one that hated what they did.
> 
> Furthermore, in order to make a living writing books, you have to write a lot of them. That's how you stay afloat. Books= time = $$. You do realize that writing to an audience of people who have $$ is what keeps authors fed, right? ...



No sweeping generalizations here. Just from my impression of this author, and others I've heard testimony from (that have largely dissolved to white noise in the back of my head)...I thought it was pretty clear from what I said that I wasn't only going off what this one lady said and applying her words to all authors ever. 

I haven't met a vast number of full-time authors, but it's a vibe I get. From lots of articles and testimonies, not just this one. 

What I mean is that...it seems like authors who make a living from it sometimes follow the audiences demands to the point of smothering genuine creative expression. as in, the stories you really love to write might not please an audience, so you have to learn to prioritize the audience. It seems to me that to make a living you have to somewhat push aside the things that really excite you. It seems that way. And things I hear from articles I read seem to confirm this.  

Not being a published author, I wouldn't know for sure. I was literally just stating my impression/feelings, not preaching my feelings as absolute truth. Or attacking published authors or anyone.


----------



## Heliotrope (Dec 24, 2016)

Yep. And this is where I think the generation of "positive thinking" is failing us. 

There is this very weird myth out there that we are supposed to be happy all the time. That everything we do is supposed to be deeply fulfilling on a spiritual level. That if we aren't constantly in a state of bliss then there is something wrong with us. We need to change careers, or partners, or find whatever else it is that will put us back in that state of bliss. 

But guess what? Life is hard bloody work. Being successful takes hard bloody work, sweat, and yep, even tears. 

Nobody who is successful loved what they did every single minute. Writers have to do dirty jobs they hate to get paid. They have to sacrifice their "creativity" sometimes to get paid. They are in a constant partnership with the reader and they must consider the reader in order to get paid. 

They have to do boring stuff like study, and learn, and read craft books, and go through crappy critiques and try again. They have to be rejected for years and years and keep getting back up and brushing themselves off and be willing to try again. 

In writing, like in ANY profession, there are no special snowflakes. Your book is not going to flow freely from your head like Athena, or be written for you while you sleep by magical fairies. 

In order to be successful at anything I think you need the trifecta: 

Skill
Talent (creativity in this case) 
Drive

Some people have one, some have two, the truly successful have all three.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Yep. And this is where I think the generation of "positive thinking" is failing us.
> 
> There is this very weird myth out there that we are supposed to be happy all the time. That everything we do is supposed to be deeply fulfilling on a spiritual level. That if we aren't constantly in a state of bliss then there is something wrong with us. We need to change careers, or partners, or find whatever else it is that will put us back in that state of bliss.
> 
> ...



And I don't expect to be happy all the time! Half the time when I sit down to write I don't want to. It's a commitment, and I don't do it just when I feel like it or just when it's fun. But seeing my unique ideas bloom to life is very, very rewarding (although there is a lot of pain, headache and occasionally just boredom involved in getting them there) and this is where my concern lies. 

I love writing, and I don't want it to be "just a job."  I don't expect it to be fun always or easy ever, but I do want it to be fulfilling. I want to communicate my ideas and feelings instead of just...putting together stories so I can make money and won't die. Can you do both (communicate your ideas and not die?) I'm scared of what I might have to compromise. 

it always alarms me when writers act like their job is a drudgery they are resigned to, when they don't seem excited about the things they write...(again, this is a common vibe I get from various places, not its this one article) The life of a modern writer seems to revolve around writing what publishers want. I mean, duh, I guess? Of course we write what publishers want? And of course we try to please our audience. They're our readers! But writing is SO innately communicative for me and I have stories I'm trying to get out and if they just aren't acceptable in the market for whatever reason then...what?  

I'm kinda at a point in my life where I need to start deciding what I want to do with my life. I could pursue writing for a living, but I don't want to churn out books factory-fashion. I don't want to submit my muse repeatedly to the fad of the day. I don't want my ultimate objective to be making money, or pleasing people. I could make good stuff that way, but it would feel ungenuine. I could enjoy it, but it wouldn't be fulfilling ultimately. I don't want to end up writing book after book I don't care about because I have to survive, is basically what I want to say.

I thrive on the art. This is my brain wiring, I think--I thrive on being obsessed, and that's why writing keeps me mentally healthy. I think maybe not all writers are like this, but I thrive on being excited about and in love with my ideas. I...just don't see a huge amount of enthusiasm about writing in the world of writers who write for a living. It's more like, yes, I enjoy writing. And hell yes I enjoy writing. The act of writing. I like short stories and crap I have no connection to. But the prospect of being stuck in writing as a career and possibly NEVER HAVING a madly passionate connection to a story is a little depressing. I don't want writing to EVER be not meaningful for me. It's the main way I communicate with the outside world. I can communicate through writing things I couldn't otherwise show the outside world. 

 I'm a bit worried about "keeping afloat" being my Reason For Writing rather than sharing my soul with the world. In my experience, the stuff that's really REAL and true and genuine, that actually says something to the world, is driven by a greater reason for writing than "because I have to" (school assignment. to get paid. Any of those) 

Isn't it OKAY for me to pursue another job while I write on the side and submit to publishers, hoping my ideas will catch a publisher's eye, instead of writing to deadlines and audiences? Or even not plan on publishing at all? Making a living solely on writing may not be for me. I'm figuring that out. 

And you might say, but you can find fulfillment and please an audience and publishers at the same time...and of course you can. But. Part of why this is so scary s that all my books and ideas are hard, hard sells. They don't fit into genres and obey tropes. They're just...unusual. Not like stuff I've seen on the market. And I LIKE them that way. They don't need to be fixed or changed. I like them that way. It would make me deeply happy if others did too. But they won't reliably provide income or anything because, well, I like to try new and weirder things every time I write a book. Stuff that, well, probably will fail sometimes. I'm okay with that but...I might starve if my books keep failing. I don't WANT to "fix" my books to cater to an audience. 

Does ANY of this make sense? Am I just in need of realizing a hard truth or can anyone relate to these feelings? I mean, I feel dumb and immature saying this, and I don't even want to post it because I feel like everyone will just think I need to grow up. (I'm working on it! Growing up, that is.) But...it is the truth of what I feel. And I do have to figure out what I'll be doing for the rest of my life.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

Well, I certainly derailed this thread something awful. 

I feel so whiny now.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 24, 2016)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Well, I certainly derailed this thread something awful.
> 
> I feel so whiny now.



No. You're totally entitled to freely state your thoughts and opinions here. However, I encourage you to look into other sources if you want to be a professional writer someday. You can absolutely write what you love and make a living. Many writers do it. In fact, a career in writing fiction is a long-term thing that will go through its ups and downs. If you, as a writer, want to be around for the long haul, then writing what you love is the only way you're going to get there. It's the only way you're going to produce work that's rich with individuality and originality. The only way you'll improve your skill to an acceptable level where people will pay you for your work.

I did ghostwrite for a while and although it was soul sucking for me, there are others out there who enjoy that line of work. I was paid well for it. But I rather publish my own ideas, so that's where my focus lies. 

Writing books for a living is rewarding and fun but also takes a tremendous amount of discipline. You're not going to have that discipline and drive if you're not writing what you're passionate about. The idea that creating art does not equal to having a career is not based on fact, and I implore you to find other resources to learn from so you're able to thrive in this dream of yours when you're at the point of starting.

But I'd like to touch on a very important point: audience. Without an audience, you're not going to sell. Without an audience, you may as well shove those books back in a drawer. Write the book for your own entertainment first, yes, but also remember that you're writing to provide others with an experience. They matter too. When writing my books, I need to keep in mind that my readers expect certain things from that story. I WANT to give them that. Does this mean my book isn't art? Well, to me it is. It's art because it comes from my heart, it comes from my creative brain, it comes from a deep desire to enrich a reader's experience someday. It's art because I have something to share.

**Giving readers what they want = studying story structure. That's it. You only need to know and understand storytelling.**

An old friend of mine is an artist. When she first started out, her work wasn't that great. It was strange and weird and I had no idea what to think about. Fast forward 10 years and the woman is selling these gigantic Alaska Native masks that she's painted, are breathtaking, and she's making a living from it. For years she worked on honing her author voice, you could say. Her work now is very individual, very creative, very unique. Those masks are the size of surfboards and they have her Native Alaskan flare. She makes pieces that people can put on their walls. That's the point, right? To make art that people can put on their walls. So is it any less art? No. It's still art, that she's making in a certain way because she wants people to buy her art so she can feed her kids. 

In this same way I view writing for a living. The idea that you have to sell out in order to make money is based on fallacy. It takes time to get name recognition, to create a backlist, BOTH of which help you sell books. That's it. It just takes time. Not selling out. Time. Patience. And Discipline. Your audience will find you.

EDIT: A final point, and I write this with love and respect, but if you (anyone you) is considering pursuing a career as a professional fiction writer, but you don't want to "churn out books", then give other career options some thought. Every book is money. Trade contracts have you write 1 book per year (more give or take depending on the author and where they're at in their career). But you cannot make a living with a one time advance. Remember, the book still has to sell and make money. So, in order to make a living, a writer needs to write A LOT and that is consistent advice across the board from pretty much every professional writer ever. If you're not okay with producing several books or short stories per year, then this may not be the option for you. Js.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

Chessie said:


> No. You're totally entitled to freely state your thoughts and opinions here. However, I encourage you to look into other sources if you want to be a professional writer someday. You can absolutely write what you love and make a living. Many writers do it. In fact, a career in writing fiction is a long-term thing that will go through its ups and downs. If you, as a writer, want to be around for the long haul, then writing what you love is the only way you're going to get there. It's the only way you're going to produce work that's rich with individuality and originality. The only way you'll improve your skill to an acceptable level where people will pay you for your work.
> 
> I did ghostwrite for a while and although it was soul sucking for me, there are others out there who enjoy that line of work. I was paid well for it. But I rather publish my own ideas, so that's where my focus lies.
> 
> ...



That last bit is kinda what I'm trying to figure out; is writing for a living the best thing for me, or should I pursue writing concurrently with another job that keeps me fed and housed? 

Some of my projects I might want to spend years exploring. I don't know what my journey as a writer will look like.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 24, 2016)

It's an adventure.  Just keep writing and see where it goes.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

And I don't think at all that writing for an audience means something isn't art. In fact it's the EXACT opposite. Art means communication, for me at least, and communication implies that there's someone you're speaking to. Somewhere out there. 

So, I don't know where the fear is stemming from...I don't understand entirely. I suppose I fear writing to please a group of people that will give me money rather than writing to reach a group of people that I can connect to using my work. But the two overlap, don't they? Or are they the same somehow? Hmm...

I don't want to end up selling something that isn't really me. Or worse, having to hold back/not being able to put out there the stuff that IS me. It seems like publishers can be strict gatekeepers of what is acceptable and what isn't. Even doing stuff for money for *a while* would probably grate on me after a bit.

I find it interesting how Helio talks about success. What is success? That'll be different for everyone, I think. 

I've always kind of assumed I would spend a long time in whatever job before I could write for a living so my college plans kind of included that assumption. But is writing "professionally" healthiest for what *I* want to accomplish? This is so far away, lol. But, yeah. I'm thinking about my future.

Edit: I would probably rather write for a living than any other job. But, I don't want to become anything like the bitter article-writers that have stuck in my head...that is, I want writing to continue to have meaning for me. Sometimes I feel like the business of writing gets in the way of the meaning for some people and they end up losing it in pursuit of success. Perhaps not every project will have the same level of meaning. Heck, I'll probably end up writing lots of "whatever" projects. But...my ultimate goal is to get the stuff I'm really passionate about out there. Will it be publishable, will people like it...? No way to know that...


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 24, 2016)

Lol @ 16 year old me over here trying to plan out my whole life.


----------



## Chessie (Dec 25, 2016)

I'm not even sure how we got on this topic/so detoured from the OG sentiment for this thread but...



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> And I don't think at all that writing for an audience means something isn't art. In fact it's the EXACT opposite. Art means communication, for me at least, and communication implies that there's someone you're speaking to. Somewhere out there.


You're contradicting yourself a bit here. From all your other posts, I gather that you share your writing with your friends, or at least like to. They're an audience. Your audience. There's this notion/idea that if a writer wants to make a living off their work, they aren't being artistic. And to that I say, "who cares!" Because it's not anyone's pie to worry about. Pretty much every writer desires an audience. In your other post (and below) you say that you fear selling work that isn't "you" in order to make a living, therefore implying that in order to sell you can't be yourself. That's simply not the case. Publishers are always looking for original work. Readers are always looking for original work (look at Miskatonic's thread as an example). Writing to an audience is what every writer does! And in order to write a book that many readers will pay you for, over and over again through the course of a book's life, it has to be a book that's not only original but also benefits the readers by delivering genre promises. That's not selling out. That's being a professional. 





DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I suppose I fear writing to please a group of people that will give me money rather than writing to reach a group of people that I can connect to using my work.


Again, you're connecting to your audience regardless and by the way, do you realize how difficult it is for new authors to even build an audience? It's flipping harder than writing the book! That's why there's all this advice about how to start building a platform before you start publishing, because name recognition is the #1 thing, along with word of mouth, that sells books. New authors have no name recognition. So selling isn't easy. Building an audience isn't easy. Dismissing that part of the gig is a mistake, really. And if your book is selling well, that means the story struck a chord, and you are pleasing the audience. 





DragonOfTheAerie said:


> What is success?


You're right. Success is personally defined. That's why if a writer wants to write pulp fiction and make a living that way, and they reach their standards of success, then it isn't right for anyone else to not call their work art or say it's selling out somehow.




DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Edit: I would probably rather write for a living than any other job. But, I don't want to become anything like the bitter article-writers that have stuck in my head...that is, I want writing to continue to have meaning for me. Sometimes I feel like the business of writing gets in the way of the meaning for some people and they end up losing it in pursuit of success. Perhaps not every project will have the same level of meaning.


Maybe they're not embittered. The author of this particular article wrote about something sensitive to her. We can all judge it in our own way, but the tone speaks more to that this is an important topic for HER, but it doesn't mean she hates writing or making a living from writing. I don't believe that you have a grasp or understanding of the business side of things, which is totally ok given where you're at in life, but I'm taking this time to clarify for you because the world of publishing has dramatically changed in the last several years and I encourage anyone thinking of doing this for a living to educate themselves the right way. 

You can't run a business or have a career running on assumptions based off other people and the way they run their businesses. I don't want other writers to come here and read this thinking that writing for a living will suck their souls because that's quite the contrary to facts. Many, if not most writers here on these forums would probably love to either write full-time or receive part-time hobby income from their work. To attach a thought like "you can only do that if you sell your soul" is ludicrous. Writing books and selling them makes writers happy. Period. I chat with many writers online all the time and ones irl and the ones who write full time are happy that they are working for themselves, selling their art, no longer having to work a full-time job + writing and that all of their efforts are dedicated to doing what they love. 

I was never more miserable than when I worked full-time and also wrote. Why? Because writing is all I want to do. I realize that building an audience is going to take me years and I'm ready for that. I do what I can each day to bring that reality a bit closer. It's not easy running the business side. Like I said, writing is the easy part. And I wouldn't do it if I couldn't write what I love.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Dec 25, 2016)

Chessie said:


> I'm not even sure how we got on this topic/so detoured from the OG sentiment for this thread but...
> 
> 
> You're contradicting yourself a bit here. From all your other posts, I gather that you share your writing with your friends, or at least like to. They're an audience. Your audience. There's this notion/idea that if a writer wants to make a living off their work, they aren't being artistic. And to that I say, "who cares!" Because it's not anyone's pie to worry about. Pretty much every writer desires an audience. In your other post (and below) you say that you fear selling work that isn't "you" in order to make a living, therefore implying that in order to sell you can't be yourself. That's simply not the case. Publishers are always looking for original work. Readers are always looking for original work (look at Miskatonic's thread as an example). Writing to an audience is what every writer does! And in order to write a book that many readers will pay you for, over and over again through the course of a book's life, it has to be a book that's not only original but also benefits the readers by delivering genre promises. That's not selling out. That's being a professional.
> ...



That's what I meant by derailing the thread, lol. Oopses. 

And, all you're saying is encouraging, I suppose (that writing for a living won't make me hate it...). 

I'm not sure where I was going with...okay, a lot of what I was saying. I'm confused by yesterday me.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2017)

I find threads like this so fascinating for so many reasons.

Firstly to DOA, I spend a lot of time with people who make their living at writing, including living with one.  Most of them are very happy doing it.  Relax.

As Lee Child said "I know a lot of lawyers trying to become writers, I don't know anyone trying to go the other way."

Education is generally a good thing.  The graduate program I know well is about Writing Genre Fiction.  So, for instance, my wife has a masters in writing genre fiction.  The graduates of that program, without statistical analysis, sure seem to have much more success in publishing than the general group of people trying to get published.  It is the right program, targeted to what you want to do.  Sure you can get an MFA and study Chaucer, and Shakespeare, and the minutiae of more classic literary works, but that is not the program I think you should put your  money in if your goal is to be a published writer in modern genre fiction.  IF you want to write modern genre fiction you should study it directly, not indirectly and there are many good programs that allow you to do so.

The other good thing about these genre fiction masters or MFA programs is that you meet a whole bunch of people who have the same interests as you, and many of them end up in your industry.  Many of the people who come out of these programs become writers and editors in genre fiction (surprise, surprise) and knowing a whole bunch of people in your industry has value.


----------



## AnonymousNobody (Jan 18, 2017)

... Ok... my freaking add blocker just ate my rant, and I cannot get angry 
enough at the moment to do the situation justice. (My brain hurts too much to be 
accommodating.) This is an outrage, plain and simple. Arrrgh, I tell you... 
Arrrgh...








Okay, but I was going to say something along the lines of, that article is why I 
am practically allergic to modern fiction, of any kind. Almost always it sounds 
like somebody with a dictionary, a thesaurus and a masters in English put all 
three in a blender, and wants to pour it down my throat. And charge me $10 for 
the privilege. Not just NO. $&%^ NO!

I don't care how famous the person is, how many books they've published, or how 
many best seller lists they're #1 on. I'm not interested in a carefully curated 
essay, an attempt at winning a poetry/prose award or any other polished-to-death 
plastic nonsense. I'd rather read, cover to cover, a circa 1920's book aimed at 
8 year olds. At least early fiction was often charming even when it was badly 
written. And it didn't always rely on cheap ploys to keep the reader from 
throwing the book away. Usually you had to get all of the way to the end of the 
book for the exciting part, which required the ability to actually read 
something and take interest in people and ideas and tiny details, rather than 
mindless, non-stop action and smut. Old books were really cool like that. I 
mean, imagine taking it for granted that your reader has brains enough to care 
about, or to understand, something other than explosions and seedy rubbish! 
Weird, huh?!

Hooray for good old books (and the alarmingly rare newer one)! Without them, I 
would hardly have any!

Okay. I'm done for the present.


----------

