Greybeard
Minstrel
After many years wandering roads long forgotten, I'm starting my first fantasy novel. For those with experience, how long does it take to finish a work?
don't worry about writing it from beginning to end. Write the parts where you know what's supposed to happen, then link them up later. I've started stories at every imaginable point, from beginning to conclusion. I've yet to write anything longer than about 300 words in a single straight-through pass.
You may find that you simply can't, or that something you wrote earlier will no longer weave into what you have since written.
Endings are not important, it's the journey that matters.
If I run an edit, it's an entire edit of the book from beginning to end to ensure the content fits… I think it comes from being an editor.… I was confused with what story it was I was trying to tell.
I for one am a firm believer that writing is not a skill that can be taught, but rather it is a trait that requires nurturing. How you nurture, of course, determines on what kind of writer you will become.
Sorry to disagree with you Ravana, but I don't. King has had many imitators, but none have reached his renown. Why? Because his writing is lit by a spark of something indefinable. You can teach someone how to paint, but you'll never turn them into another Caravaggio: some things come from within and can't be imposed from outside. Not all are equal, and not all are capable (and, lest I be accused of elitism, I number myself firmly amongst the proles).Could a forty-year-old, high-school dropout, community college student become (say) Stephen King? Well… yes, I think so.
Sorry to disagree with you Ravana, but I don't. King has had many imitators, but none have reached his renown. Why? Because his writing is lit by a spark of something indefinable. You can teach someone how to paint, but you'll never turn them into another Caravaggio: some things come from within and can't be imposed from outside. Not all are equal, and not all are capable (and, lest I be accused of elitism, I number myself firmly amongst the proles).
After all, one of the "followers" of Caravaggio was Rembrandt. I'm guessing he started out wishing he might someday aspire to being something close to Caravaggio's "equal"… and that either no one ever told him he couldn't learn to paint like that, or else he didn't listen to anyone who did. Which is the proper response. And then he took it his own direction, and "became" Rembrandt–who we remember far better, and not as "the next Caravaggio," either. Sure, there's a limit past which you can't be taught (at least by a given teacher): after that, you have to teach yourself, or else remain forever derivative, a del Sarto rather than a da Vinci. But all of those painters were taught to paint; the ones we remember were the ones that turned themselves into the artists we know them today as. But only after they were taught the foundations upon which they built.
I don't reject the notion at all. Of course everyone can create art, but 99% of it will be rubbish. That's just a fact of life. I can't paint to save my life. I'd like to be able to, but I have enough self-awareness to know that whatever I commit to canvas will be risible. We're not all capable. Some of us are naturally good at some things. Some of us are naturally good at nothing. That's life. Blame nature. Blame nurture.I utterly reject the notion that only certain special people are capable of creating art at all–or that only this elect few are capable of achieving distinction, or even greatness.