Is it wrong for me to be a Writer

[srebak]

Is it wrong for me to try to be an author if i've never read a full chapter book? Thanks to the internet and occassionally TV and Movies, i've managed to get a certain amount of information about certain books and the authors that wrote them. I know about the books written by R.L. Stine and J.R.R. Tolkien but i've never actually read them. I have read parts of the Redwall books but i got most of my information about them from either looking online or watching the TV adaptation. Is it wrong to try and be a writer myself?

 

[W.k. Trail]

I don't know about "wrong," but I admit I don't know how well you'll fare. Writing a book is harder and requires a much longer attention span than reading one. You also aren't likely to have a good understanding of pacing or how stories are structurally laid out.

A big part of writing is understanding what does and doesn't work for you, out of books you've already read.

 

[Leif GS Notae]

Well, you can certainly write. Being a writer and an author are two different things. Anyone can write and should to their hearts content. In order to capture your voice and be an author, you will need to accept that you will have to read something. Even if it is short stories, flash fiction, poetry, etc.; putting the effort into reading what others do will help you know the direction you need to go.

You wouldn't expect to know what the greatest trend is in television without really watching it. Sure, you can get the sterile moments captured on the web in a wiki or forum, but that is different than actually feeling the moment.

As I said, that should never stop you from writing.

 

[Jess A]

Read some books. Read widely.

 

[Xanados]

You need to read just like film directors/reviewers need to watch a lot of films and game designers have to play and dissect a lot of games. I will admit I haven't read LOTR yet, but I have read The Hobbit and a whole bunch of other books.

 

[fleamailman]

("...to post is to publish..." mentioned the goblin, adding "...oh yes, though mentioning that often lands me in hot water but it's the truth none the less, with more readers turning up on forumland each day than that bookworld then, so now, you want to be a writer, well why not for example do a post, noting the hitcount to it...", whereupon the goblin wondered how to proceed here, knowing that the hitcount equated to the readership, but he just continued anyway, saying "...so you continue posting, but instead of doing what the majority of posters do, that is simply post and discard each time, you actually saved your better posts for another forum/venue where you then reposted it again but in an edited form for feedback and safe keeping, in other words air/edit/backup here, and where if you are really really good the practice might just turn you into a livewriter eventually, and what is a livewriter you're asking, just someone who can do one post and get hundreds of hits by it, and on forums my dear srebak the livewriters are the most sought after posters going, where I can think of three or four of them, but their readership is amazing...")

 

[mythique890]

I agree with Xanados, anyone who works or wants to work within a field will always do better if they keep up with what's been done and what's currently popular, and writers do that by reading. And don't forget that in editing your own book, you're going to have to read it several times over. The nice thing about reading is that it's never too late to start. But out of curiosity, if you don't like to read books, why do you want to write one?

 

[srebak]

But out of curiosity, if you don't like to read books, why do you want to write one?

It all started when i began writing stories for no particular reason and soon, writing just felt right for me.

 

[Dreamhand]

Here's another question: why did you start this post? Why even ask the question "Is it wrong?" If you want to write, you certainly don't need our blessing.

Do YOU feel it's wrong that you enjoy crafting something that you've never actually experienced? Do you see something amiss in the idea of a mechanic that doesn't drive or a chef that doesn't eat?

I would hazard a guess that most people in this community are voracious readers because we love to read. We love the language and experiencing the rush of a well-crafted tale in words, not pictures (not the same thing at all). Many of us what to share in that legacy of creating a character or a story that engages someone, that inspires or entertains or intrigues one other person. Some of us just want to master the art of language in the crafting of something that's longer than 140 characters.

So, by all means... write. Explore the wonder of the written word. People write journals, letters, emails... writing is everywhere. Most everyone does it, in one form or another. Some of them are very good at it.

But make no mistake... there is a vast difference between writing a good Twitter post and writing a good novel. That's not to say you can't be the next Ernest Hemingway or Neil Gaiman. But then... they read books. They drew on the craft and wisdom of masters who in turn also read and were inspired by those who wrote before them.

So write! Explore! It's a marvelous adventure!

But here is a simple truth... if you don't read, then you'll be (quite literally) trying to rediscover on your own what humanity has been exploring for thousands of years... how to preserve, ennoble, and enrich life through words.

 

[Taytortots]

First off, no. It is not wrong for you to be an author.
In saying that, you may find the task difficult. Reading teaches you about, well, books. In reading you'll learn pacing and description and get a general feel of how a good book should be. You'll learn a lot more too.
I'm not saying it's impossible for you to be a writer if you've never really read, you just may find the feat a lot harder than those who have read books.

 

[Ravana]

But out of curiosity, if you don't like to read books, why do you want to write one?

What I was going to ask.

Basically, what they said: there's nothing wrong with you wanting to write. If you want to write well… read. If you want to avoid doing what's been done to death already (or at least recently)… read. If you want to have endless sources of new ideas… read. If you want to be successful (in the commercial sense) as a writer… you'd better read.

Substitute in any other art or craft occupation for "writer," and see what happens to the question. If you wanted to paint, should you look at other paintings? If you wanted to be a musician, should you listen to music? Yes, you could simply pick up paints and brush and start doing your own thing; you can self-teach on at least some instruments (such as keyboards) in a fairly straightforward manner, and work out the rest eventually through trial and error. But what kind of painting or music would you expect to come from such a person? A vanishingly small number of persons in human history have been almost entirely self-taught–perhaps two or three in each field, as far as Western culture goes, and I can't see it being any different in any other. Nor did they work in complete isolation even then–not one of them, to the best of my knowledge: they still saw pieces of art or heard music. They still had examples to draw upon, react to, improve upon or diverge from.

Same goes for writing. If you can't imagine wanting to attend a concert by someone who's never listened to music (or, more parallel to your example, never listened to a song from beginning to end), except, perhaps, out of sheer curiosity regarding what they might possibly produce… then I think you have your answer. No, it isn't "wrong" for you to want to write; your present approach, however, probably is. At any rate I can't see it taking you very far, and getting there will be a lot harder than necessary.

Doesn't mean you should stop writing and read novels for the next ten years prior to starting again: by all means, keep practicing. But if you're serious about writing… read.

 

[srebak]

1. I'm not saying i don't read, i do (vaguely) remember hearing the words in some books and reading parts of others. I'm just saying i've never really read an entire chapter book from beginning to end. I have read though, I've read a few Dr. Seuss books and a few other shorter books. It's just that once i've gotten the jist of some stories via movies or television, actually reading the books just seems, i don't know, redundant.

2. Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?

 

[sashamerideth]

I don't know where to begin really. The idea that you can understand a book from watching the movie, that is just insane. Movies simply cannot express to the audience what is written on the page. So much is lost in the making of the movie. Seriously, get a grip. I wasn't a huge Harry Potter fan, but those books got kids to read, and the movies relate so little of what was in the books. Entire plotlines and characters were left out, the movies were less magical than the books, I even imagined better special effects than what was on the screen.

I studied to be a librarian, and that's a job that requires a love of books and learning. As evidenced by you, there are people that want to write without actually having a solid grounding in reading. Illiteracy is the bane of my existence, and I simply cannot understand what drives people to not want to pick up a book and read.

As for the last point, fame is not well defined here. Everyone knowing your name, highly doubtful. Getting your book published, chances are not good. Making a modest living from your books, not in this day and age. This is all if you are a stellar writer and a good reader. If you don't have both of those things, you are missing some essential tools of the trade, like a doctor that has never been to school.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner

 

[fleamailman]

Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?

("...what if I were to tell you that writing is actually a type of madness then, would you still wish to become mad for all that fame and fortune..." replied the goblin, adding "...I mean have you ever stopped to think that what one writes to a page in its turn writes itself back to the back of one's mind, yes that's right, it's just a practice of schizophrenia if ever there was one, where first one feels for the vision playing all the parts, seeing everything too, and then in the next instant one portrays that vision down within typed words as faithfully as possible, again and again and again, without let up now, so writer's live this shared life between their visions and its portrayal, and that muse does not go back into her bottle those works all written...", in fact, readers often dreamed of becoming authors like this, where those authors in their turn, who had fallen for that fame and fortune carrot, just wound up with a journey to self instead, no not exactly short changed as such but hardly what they bargained for either)

 

[The Blue Lotus]

"Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?"

Well dear, that depends on you.
If you give yourself a little kick in the pants and pick up a few thousand books, you have just as much chance as anybody else.
That does not mean that you can never write a good tale, I know of at least one example of a very famous author who is in effect a functional illiterate.
This person is the editor's kryptonite to be sure, so much so that once that this persons' editor was promoted, she refused to ever even so much as look at any MS that person submitted again.

How this person is able to do what they do is beyond me, mainly because I'd kill and or Maim someone over any of my books, but that is just me.
In either case, idiot savant, or hardened student of the craft, for most of us simply finishing a WIP is all the "Fame" we need.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

2. Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?

Let's just say the odds are not in your favor.

 

[Ravana]

2. Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?

Essentially, yes–if you continue present practice. I probably exaggerated a bit when I said that there have been examples from history who were entirely self-taught, in the sense that I implied that there were authors who have managed this. In fact, while I've seen references to one or two painters and musicians who have accomplished this feat, I'm not actually familiar with a single author who has–and, again, those painters and musicians who did manage to self-teach still weren't isolated from other works in their field: they all did the equivalent of "reading" for their fields. The only reasons I didn't use the word "impossible" was because I generally hate to call anything impossible, and because I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of every single writer throughout history. To say that your chances would be somewhat less than one in a billion would in all probability be an understatement.

Clearly, you are not illiterate–far from it: your sentences are better constructed than some of those who've responded here. I ask you: where did you learn to do that? It wasn't from watching television and movies. It wasn't even from reading newspapers, nor, for all his brilliance, was it from reading Dr. Seuss. (If anything, it was in spite of that, since you don't write in his style.) You didn't learn the word "redundant" from any of those sources, either, I'd hazard to guess. (I can think of one or two newspapers that would use it, but I doubt most people here read them. If they read any newspaper.) It's possible you picked it up reading on the internet, but only if you spend your time hanging out on sites like this one. But wherever you picked it up, it was from reading something.

Nor, I feel fairly confident in speculating, did you learn these from your English teachers. And don't even try to tell me you had English teachers that didn't require you to read. Ever wonder why they do that? It isn't to bore you: it's because providing examples teaches better than anything that could possibly be presented through mere explication.

Those are just purely technical examples: vocabulary and sentence structure. Do you really think the need for technical knowledge ends there? I suspect you can handle paragraphing as well, though I can't be sure from what you've posted: I'd need to see something longer. Even at that point, what an English teacher would tell you is "proper" and what fits the needs of a given type of writing begin to diverge. (Actually, they begin to diverge at the vocabulary level, as you should have guessed from my comments on the word "redundant.") Constructing discrete sections of action (scenes, chapters) is yet another step: a short story may only have one scene, but even that will be rare; in longer pieces it is unheard of. Then you have to connect them. Then you have to be able to integrate all of them into the overall plot… and likewise have to be certain your plot is fully illustrated by the actions. And what of the plot itself? Something that can be sustained for the length of a 60-80k word novel is far different from what is required for a 3k word short story. Characterization changes as well: for a short, you aren't going to get into much depth for any single character (unless that's the only thing you do, at least); for a novel, characters must be well-developed, display depth, and change over time.

All that is at least shared between writing and audiovisual media, no matter how great the differences are (and they are). What about the rest of your text, though? The "visuals"? Do you have the first idea how to render something you watch into something that can be read–and that can produce a similar effect? I say "similar," not "the same," because if you try to make it the same you'll fail utterly: it can't be done. that one I am willing to throw an "impossible" on. A complete description of a single frame of a movie would exceed short story length all by itself (at least if the cinematographer is any good). For some, this constitutes the motivation for going into cinematic production in the first place: they can display far more than can ever be included in a text. For writers, the opposite is true: we're the ones who seek to reduce that oft-cited picture-to-words ratio. Even if you think you can get away with nothing but character and action, you still need to be able to describe those. Well. Well enough that your readers will be able to visualize for themselves the "who," "what" and "how"–and, honestly, you're going to want to be able to cover "where" and "when," too. Along with "why"–which, for quality writing, should be illustrated through the characters and their actions: it's the one you don't get to simply state outright… whereas in screenplays, it often is. (Weak screenplays, at least.)

I won't even start in on trying to replicate the effects a good soundtrack can produce.…

"Getting the gist" of stories from movies and television may allow you to write screenplays–possibly excellent ones, for all I know. But the skills involved differ immensely from those required to write good text. (You need not take my word for it: ask any successful author who's turned a hand at writing screenplays.) You might be able to successfully handle short pieces, avoiding the complexity, depth and integration required for a successful novel… even there you're going to do far better if you read shorts extensively.

Besides, it takes a special kind of attitude to want to produce things you aren't interested in. Consider what would happen if everyone took your approach: no one would read. In which case, I can guarantee you would never be a "famous" writer… because nobody would.

If you were looking for affirmation that you don't have to read to write–or absolution for not doing so–you're definitely looking in the wrong place.

Or, as this excellent quote from a Salon.com article on the subject puts it:

Wanting to write without wanting to read is like wanting to use your imagination without wanting to know how.

 

[fleamailman]

[no parse]Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?[/no parse]

("...if you write for a reason, you'll end up trapped by that reason then, and swayed by those externals..." replied the goblin, continuing "...whereas if you write through force of habit without reason you'll be a writer because it is you by your nature then...", merely the goblin was pointing out that what with the bookworld in decline, in part due to the fact most people didn't have the time in their day to read at length, anyone who wished to write, moreover someone who felt that becoming famous actually meant something too, should look around and take into account where the growing readership is, but where the bookworld is so desperately trying not to notice, or to deny its existence even, so the goblin cleared his throat and then just said "...welcome to forumland and forum readership too, oh yes you laugh at me now, but you won't once you look more closely at forum readership...")

 

[Jess A]

2. Tell me straight, are you saying i'll never be a famous writer?

I cannot understand why you are asking this ludicrous question of us. Are you truly concerned? Is this a joke - or are you attempting to provoke a response? If the latter is the case, then you appear to have succeeded in that.

Nobody can tell you what you will and will not be.

I will repeat myself. Read books. Read widely. You will never become 'a famous writer' if you don't read widely and critically and you most certainly will not become famous if you only write to become famous!

As Ravana has mentioned, you are certainly not illiterate. However, it takes more than a good vocabulary and good grammar to construct a story.

 

[mythique890]

Even the best of us aren't likely to be come famous writers. There are thousands of published authors, but only a tiny percentage make enough money to quit their day job, and it takes years from the time your book is written until enough people have heard of you that you make any money to speak of. If you're looking at writing as a quick way to make a fortune or get famous (not saying you are, but if so) you're looking into the wrong hobby. I think you'll find while most of the people on this forum would love to get published, most of us are doing this because we have a deep passion for (or obsession with) the written word, not to get famous. Once again, not saying you are.