Learning about writing from reading

[pmmg]

I have a secret.

I am not a reader, and I don't enjoy it. In fact, I almost never read for enjoyment, and almost always just to learn something. This includes reading works that are meant for enjoyment, such as many great works of fiction. I don't know if that makes this a question for me, or not, but I do feel I have something to add.


Without question, I have read a lot of bad fiction, and I have learned the most from it. Mostly, I learn a lot of stuff not to do. Such as, don’t make weird unpronounceable names for your main characters. Or, if the story is going well and engaging, dont trek off to someplace completely away from that. Or don’t just give me a story so I can go, 'wow, what a cool villain' (hint, I won’t think your villain is cool). Or send me a piece of work and expect me to do all of your proof reading for you. Or, miss big items, like conflict (um…is it even a story if there is no conflict?), or good characters, or good opportunities for foreshadowing. Or, bury me in many pages of thick dense prose telling me the color of trees, and the sounds of birds, and majesty of the mountains. In fact, I feel I have learned so much for bad writing, that I think, without question, if someone was to ask me 'what can I do to learn how to write better?' I would tell them to go find a peer review site and start reviewing. IMO, that is the fastest path (along with putting up stuff and getting reviews as well). And stick with anything you start, whether it is good or bad. The bad stuff is more educational.


From the published authors, I also tend to pick up a lot. People tell me I use comma's and semicolon's wrong. Well, I pay close attention to how other authors are using them, and try to put this 'weakness' behind me. (Though I must say, I think a lot of it is just nitpicking, and I kind of go along with, if it succeeds in making the story clearer, then I guess it works). Beyond grammar, I think of my own writing, and things I am struggling with, such as world building, for instance, and I may start to notice how the other authors have incorporated their own world building into their works. Was it subtle, direct, infodumpy...whatever. If I find some ways that I think work, I might say I can use a similar technique on my own. Often I cannot, because my voice is my own and it does not lend itself to others very well, but sometimes, I think, ‘Yeah, I can do something like that which I just read’. Another thing I find I pick up, is just words. Sometimes words I did not know, and sometimes words used in ways I would not likely have considered.


(And I might add, when I read the opening to Game of thrones, I felt I learned something. Cause I had never thought to include a detail like the sweat worn handle of a sword, or the taste of a knife as one was climbing a tree. I don’t know if I can use it, but….It’s got me thinking about fleshing things out.)


Other things I tend to learn, are just trends. What has the evolution of this genre's writing been? What is currently hot, and where do I think it is going? Maybe a little of who does it well, and who is over-rated. I feel I follow that too.


I read Steven King's book on writing (Wasn't that the name, on writing?). I must say, I found I was in agreement with him a lot in that work, but I dont like anything I have ever read that Steven King has done, go figure.

Oh, and I should also add, by reading a lot of stuff (cause I do,) it keeps the idea factory going. Been thinking a lot of Malik's comments about steel and armor of late. And on a bit of other research about leather and gambeson armor, and I am thinking I might make a change, but I might not. I don't know.

 

[Annoyingkid]

The risk in learning writing through reading is internalizing what others have done and being locked into certain patterns of storytelling and use of fantasy tropes.

 

[skip.knox]

I try to find analogies with other arts.
The best way to learn painting is through staring.
The best way to learn music is to listen to music.
The best way to learn to dance is to watch musicals. (ok, cheap shot)

Point is, yes by all means look at other paintings if you wish to paint. But that's only going to be one approach among many, each of which will be of varying value to different artists and will vary in value even over the course of an individual artist's career.

Go ahead and read, but the benefits are not linear. If A reads 50% more books than B, it does not follow that A will be half again the writer as B. Writer A might very well turn out to be worse. The only thing we can say reliably is that if C never reads a single book, then C is unlikely ever to write a book. Then again, C is unlikely even to try.

Beyond that modest observation I am unwilling to tread.

 

[pmmg]

Mileage may vary.

I hate to say, but I do think there is something to be learned from staring, and listening, and watching musicals (How do you think I got all my moves?). But that would all need to be supplemental to actually engaging in trying to learn a craft or an art form. So, it don't matter how much you read, if you never write anything, you wont become a better writer. I think that would go without saying though.

To say there is no value in reading is equally as false as to say it is all that is needed.

 

[Sheilawisz]

In the arts of Storytelling and also in many other skills, natural learning is excellent.

Did you study your native language when you were speaking your first words? Did you learn it from books and professors, in a classroom? Not at all! We learn our native language by natural means, simply by hearing other people as they talk and then slowly and by instinct trying to do the same ourselves.

I was barely old enough to walk when my parents started showing cartoon movies to me in English.

At first, English was just gibberish to me. I could not understand what the animated characters were saying, but I started to associate their words with their actions in the story. That was my beginning in the natural learning of English, and it continued years later with videogames and also plenty of movies with real people in them.

I got so used to playing games in English, that today I refuse to play them in my native language.

It's true that I also received English classes, and most of them took place at very prestigious bilingual schools. The professors were excellent, and the artificial learning helped me as well but its impact was quite little if compared with the natural thing. Even today my English is not that of a native speaker, but it's good enough for me to participate in these forums and even to write novels in your language.

Just reading some of the great and influential novels out there can help a lot in the natural learning of how to tell stories, but you have to start working on your own stories in order to get experience and become better as time passes. Allow it to be a natural thing, and let the stories be in contact with you and to express themselves through your imagination and your narrative.

There have been many famous authors that created great literary works even if they never studied literature and writing techniques at some academy or college. Miguel de Cervantes was a soldier and a tax collector, his knowledge of literature was limited to natural learning and still he managed to create what is often regarded as the greatest work of written fiction of all times.

Lewis Carroll was a mathematician, and Victor Hugo was a totally natural storyteller and poet as well.

Learning about how to tell stories (in both natural and artificial ways) is the start, but all of the learning and knowledge in the world are not going to matter if you do not have good and powerful stories to tell. Stories are something mysterious and magical, and that's why I believe that being a storyteller is a matter of calling and destiny.

 

[Lorna Smithers]

I find reading is really helpful from both an analytical and inspirational perspective. It helps me get a grip on how other authors handle descriptions, character development, plot, first person and third person narratives, and also to find out what moves me - what excites me and makes me want to read on, what makes me feel sympathy for characters and what makes me hate them, what I find magical and numinous and mysterious, what those moments are that I'll never forget.

Because I know I write much better in the first person and prefer a first person narrative I've been contemplating that in relation to my reading.

Recently I've read all of Robin Hobb's Farseer and Liveships books and one of the things that stood out to me was how immersed I was in Fitz's story from a first person perspective. Whilst the Liveships continued the narrative within the magical world and I loved the serpents and dragons I didn't find the human characters quite as engaging - maybe because there were more of them and from a third person perspective. Would I have enjoyed those books more from, say, solely Althea's perspective?

I'm now re-reading the Dragonlance books which are a totally different style - third person omniscient. This made me feel even more distanced from the characters. I almost didn't make it through Dragons of Autumn Twilight in the first trilogy as I didn't feel much rapore with the characters at all and it was only part way through the second book, Dragons of Winter Night, with Lorac's nightmare, that the plot began to come together around the central characters - Raistlin, Caramon, Tanis, Kitiara, Laurana and Tas. The ending of the third book was awesome. I'm now on the 'Twins' trilogy and am enjoying that much more as it centres on Raistlin and Caramon and Tas with the reappearance of Kitiara and a new character - Raistlin's apprentice, Dalamar, who I wish had a bigger role. I will admit to finding myself getting annoyed when the book moves away from those main characters to the clerics of Istar or the dwarves of Thorbardin for the sake of plotting and world building but guess that may work for others.

 

[Heliotrope]

Go ahead and read, but the benefits are not linear. If A reads 50% more books than B, it does not follow that A will be half again the writer as B. Writer A might very well turn out to be worse.

Actually Skip, on a fundamental level educational research has proven this to be false on a variety of levels, one being increased level of vocabulary = kids are better able to express themselves and describe what is in their imaginations = direct correlation to better writing. We see it all the time in the classroom.

Reading aloud is the best way to help children develop word mastery and grammatical understanding, which form the basis for learning how to read, said Massaro, who studies language acquisition and literacy...

Study says reading aloud to children, more than talking, builds literacy

Moderator Note: Post edited because of Mythic Scribes rules against Duplicate Content.

We see the proof of this research all the time in the elementary classroom. It is obvious who has been read to from an early age and who has spent the better part of their childhood watching tv and playing video games. The kids who are regularly read to have a far better mastery of language, and far higher vocabulary, and thy intuitively understand grammatical structure and story format. Not only that, but they have a far higher wealth of "story ideas" than the kids who watch tv all day. You would think on that level the tv kids and book kids would be equal, as watching TV and movies exposes kids to a ton of different story ideas, but we know that when people are watching TV their brains are not engaged. The brain essentially shuts down, so the TV kids don't process what they are seeing as well as the reading kids do.

So in the classroom 50% more reading absolutely does, and has been proven to = 50% (or more) better writing.

 

[Devor]

So in the classroom 50% more reading absolutely does, and has been proven to = 50% (or more) better writing.

I think that's maybe apples and oranges. As an adult I read all the time - news articles, websites, emails, facebook posts, subtitles on the screen because the kids won't stop talking - and absolutely that's important for understanding language and articulating clear points. But I think it's implied that we're talking about reading fantasy novels to write fantasy novels, which is a different question entirely.

I was reading an article just yesterday from HBR that suggested that a huge number of creative discoveries are made by those on the fringes of their field - for instance, chemists who make advancements in molecular biology instead of chemistry. That's because they have the skills but haven't been taught how to approach the particular problem at hand. So they approach it differently than everyone else.

Bearing that in mind, I think there's some room for debate about how much any given person needs to read, or rather, to what they should be reading if they want to focus on becoming a writer. I don't think the correlation between the number of books you've read and rated on goodreads and the quality of your writing is going to be 1. I would guess it's closer to .3, with a crazy distribution.

 

[Heliotrope]

I think that's maybe apples and oranges. As an adult I read all the time - news articles, websites, emails, facebook posts, subtitles on the screen because the kids won't stop talking - and absolutely that's important for understanding language and articulating clear points. But I think it's implied that we're talking about reading fantasy novels to write fantasy novels, which is a different question entirely.

I was reading an article just yesterday from HBR that suggested that a huge number of creative discoveries are made by those on the fringes of their field - for instance, chemists who make advancements in molecular biology instead of chemistry. That's because they have the skills but haven't been taught how to approach the particular problem at hand. So they approach it differently than everyone else.

Bearing that in mind, I think there's some room for debate about how much any given person needs to read, or rather, to what they should be reading if they want to focus on becoming a writer. I don't think the correlation between the number of books you've read and rated on goodreads and the quality of your writing is going to be 1. I would guess it's closer to .3, with a crazy distribution.

In the OP it didn't say anything specifically about reading fantasy to write fantasy. Skip noted that he has read many books "over a variety of genres" and wondered if it would directly correlate to better writing. My argument is yes, it does. It does in kids, it does in teenagers, it does in adults, period.

Yes, the distribution is for sure varied, but the results of numerous studies holds true.

And as far as the scientists, I imagine that may be true of writers as well as far as genre, as in, a romance writers might write spectacular, new, fresh and engaging sci-fi because she/he is coming at it from a new and fresh angle. But a refrigerator repairman with an eight grade education and an impoverished background with limited access to reading material is not suddenly going to start pumping out best sellers.

 

[FifthView]

The risk in learning writing through reading is internalizing what others have done and being locked into certain patterns of storytelling and use of fantasy tropes.

Some of that's also the benefit of reading. I'd love to internalize more of what others have done, just so I could have those tools at hand. Actually, I think I've already done that, although who knows what, exactly, I've internalized at this point. I didn't keep track for the vast majority of it.

Similarly, knowing all those tropes and patterns helps to avoid repeating them unwittingly and generically.

The "being locked" portion of your comment is spot-on however. I think what helps a writer avoid that is either more reading—to discover the great variety of approaches that aren't always complementary—or letting oneself move beyond the idea that what has been read is what and how it must be done. Or, both.

 

[Devor]

In the OP it didn't say anything specifically about reading fantasy to write fantasy. Skip noted that he has read many books "over a variety of genres" and wondered if it would directly correlate to better writing. My argument is yes, it does. It does in kids, it does in teenagers, it does in adults, period.

Yes, the distribution is for sure varied, but the results of numerous studies holds true.

There's also the law of diminishing returns, and the fact that all reading is not created equal. If the studies are based on children, who presumably have nowhere to go but up, they won't necessarily hold for adults, who could very well read a hundred books that don't challenge or push their abilities.

Also, there are many skills involved with writing that reading will not address. Reading alone doesn't activate the problem solving areas of your mind, for instance, and there are many problems to solve in writing a story.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to knock reading, just the notion that it's the main way that we learn how to write. There are other things that are equally and often even more important. If I was going to put together an outline for teaching someone to write, I would probably have people spend 1/5 of the time reading, and 4/5ths elsewhere. And I'd be pushing people to read books that are very different.... well you remember the Reading Quest concept. Look at comedy, then at romance, then at worldbuilding, and get a feel for different corners of the genre, and don't just grab the thing that fancies you most assuming that volume is what matters.

 

[skip.knox]

I won't get into the scientific evidence except to quote one of my favorite quotes:
studies show that studies show

But my OP was a bit more specific. I wondered if anyone could point to particular things they had learned about writing from reading they had done. I can point to a couple. Not a long list, but one (how to write a battle scene) has been useful more than once.

Then again, what I learned from Tolstoy is nothing that has not been said in a hundred "how-to" articles--the importance of emotional involvement, focusing on a single character at least for one perspective, seizing on specific moments--so it's hard to make the case that reading Tolstoy or some other fiction is somehow better than just reading the "how-to" articles. In fact, one could probably make the opposite case, as the articles present the information in a more compact manner.

Except for this: the scenes at Borodino still resonate with me. I "learned" how to write a battle scene long before--decades--before I undertook to write one. The scene had an emotional impact that said this was right, this is the way it happens, or at least this is the way best to imagine it in lieu of experiencing it. So when I finally did come to write my set piece, I reached for that approach as naturally as constructing a sentence with subject, verb, object. No practical tips article is going to have that sort of impact. And when in the depths of writing, it's going to be those resonances and echoes that guide the pen.

Anyway, that's my theory. Bowing to Sturgeon's Law, one is going to have to read a great many books in order to glean a handful of insights that make each author who they are at any point in time.

 

[Heliotrope]

Dude, I teach reading and writing for a living. The Reading Quest concept was based on at least 80% time spent reading. Yes, you were reading different genres, with the intent to focus on different things, and that is the point.

Over the last decade we in education noticed a major problem with kid's reading competencies (and ready for it... writing ability) taking a massive nose dive. Skip teaches University, have you noticed this Skip? The students just aren't writing essays or processing the reading in the same way they used to?

Why?

The research has shown, time and time again, that kids are simply not reading enough. They are spending too much time with their brain shut off in front of screens. At school we shifted to a more "open ended/self exploration" approach and stopped teaching basic core skills. We gave students assignments like "Write a poem about the leaves falling outside" and then told them all how wonderful they were and how each poem was a special little snowflake **. We stopped making them read outloud to us and to each other because we "didn't want them to get embarrassed and damage their self-esteem and make them hate reading", so we started giving them busy work like "draw a picture of a scene from the story."

Basically, any meaningful reading and writing abruptly ended in the classroom and we went to a model like the one you described above: 3 parts busy work, 1 part reading.

The curriculum in BC has changed dramatically to incorporate more time for kids to simply read and analyze what they are reading. Listen to reading. Read to others. Read to self. Then work on writing.

So actually, in education today the opposite of what you suggest is true. We do 80% work on reading, 20% work on writing, and the results are insane.

**Note: This special snowflake syndrome is one I think is dominating the self pub world right now. "My stories are amazing and wonderful and no one likes them because they are too stupid to understand them and they just don't get my creative genius."

 

[Devor]

Basically, any meaningful reading and writing abruptly ended in the classroom and we went to a model like the one you described above: 3 parts busy work, 1 part reading.

I didn't say anything about busy work....

Again, though, you're still talking about education and teaching and "writing" in a very different sense. You're talking about basic learning and critical thinking, not about writing a novel. I don't feel that we're on the same page of the discussion. Also, there's this assumption that I'm making, that "reading = fiction books," that also doesn't hold in education, where "reading = shorts, articles, case studies, commentaries, textbooks...." We're talking about different things, here. Then in education, it's about 100% exercises, whereas in developing a novel, you have to make time for the actual work.

And then still, there's phases to learning, especially learning a skill. Teachers, for instance, have to spend time in the classroom, and often have to spend 4 years on the job before they really become competent. So are we talking about the in-front-of-the-classroom phase or the college phase? Are we talking about med school or the surgical residency? Become I'm definitely discussing something closer to the residency.

 

[Heliotrope]

I didn't say anything about busy work....

Again, though, you're still talking about education and teaching and "writing" in a very different sense. You're talking about basic learning and critical thinking, not about writing a novel. I don't feel that we're on the same page of the discussion. Also, there's this assumption that I'm making, that "reading = fiction books," that also doesn't hold in education, where "reading = shorts, articles, case studies, commentaries, textbooks...." We're talking about different things, here. Then in education, it's about 100% exercises, whereas in developing a novel, you have to make time for the actual work.

And then still, there's phases to learning, especially learning a skill. Teachers, for instance, have to spend time in the classroom, and often have to spend 4 years on the job before they really become competent. So are we talking about the in-front-of-the-classroom phase or the college phase? Are we talking about med school or the surgical residency? Become I'm definitely discussing something closer to the residency.

True. All true. ^^^^ All of this.

I'm only arguing that more reading = better writing. That is all.

Even at the residency level, when a student is doing their PhD they need to be reading higher level stuff in order to research their thesis. They can't just start writing a thesis with no research. So they read what others have done in the field, draw from that, learn from that, then add their own thoughts and opinions and research.

What I'm saying is you can't write in a vacuum. Reading will always help you be a better writer. Always. No matter what you are reading, whether it is "how to write articles" or genre fiction.

Just as someone who doesn't listen to music or enjoy music isn't going to be a best selling musician.

 

[Heliotrope]

On a slightly more personal level, if I were a successful professional writer (which obviously I'm not) I would find the notion that "Oh, well, I've read enough books. I should be able to just pick up a pen and in a few years or so write a decent novel without any study," really offensive.

"Oh well, I've listened to enough music. I will just pick up this violin and start playing with it and in a few years I'll play in an orchestra. I don't need to do any formal learning or waste time listening to any more music."

It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Chessie2]

**Note: This special snowflake syndrome is one I think is dominating the self pub world right now. "My stories are amazing and wonderful and no one likes them because they are too stupid to understand them and they just don't get my creative genius."

The issue is more that these writers refuse to accept a very important fact: the market exists with certain parameters and guidelines whether they like it or not. My response will be slightly off topic at first but I intend to make it back around to the OP thread.

One thing that troubles me about this website in particular are the views of Indie publishing that AREN'T REAL. What you've stated there, Helio, is a myth. You do not self-publish and therefore, do not understand what it means to be involved in that world far as writing and publishing and marketing goes. I'm not saying this to be mean, just that you are coming from a perspective that is literary, traditional, and very much the opposite mindset of what it takes to succeed in self-publishing (which is very difficult, btw, and I don't intent to say that I am an expert). Listen, I read a lot of assumptions about Indie publishing on this site that make me roll my eyes because they're simply untrue. What I see dominating the Indie market are many things (scammers and real writers alike). The market is saturated yet growing, maturing. There is no special snowflake syndrome with just Indies. This syndrome affects writers who want to traditionally publish as well and I'll state that it's an individual thing.

Check it: a writer wants to write a certain book. They write it. Package it. Publish it. Either it hits or it doesn't. MANY BOOKS DON'T HIT regardless of how they are published. Many writers fight the urge to surrender to the market. This means that if you write fantasy fiction you must know the differences between epic, sword and sorcery, historical, urban, etc if you want to succeed as a published author. Many writers just want to write their art and get away with it without considering that, when you publish a book, you are expecting people to pay money for something that you created. Why would they want to pay for a book that doesn't resonate with them? A book no one wants to read? I read this a lot: "I don't want to write tropes. I want my book to be different. I want to publish my book and don't care if no one reads it or I won't read my reviews." <--- then don't whine when it doesn't sell.

I have 6 (going on 7) titles up for sale and only 2 of them sell okay. I wouldn't say the rest are duds but there are reasons why they do poorly and I'm striving to improve that part of my business. A huge part of succeeding as an author has to do with the ability to lock down your audience and understand that, when you sell your work, it's no longer about you. PERIOD.

Now, to tie it back to reading, this is why why why reading is so so so important. If you don't read the books you want to write, then how will you know what readers want? Every genre and sub-genre even has nuances and subtleties that make it what it is. Readers expect certain things. For example, I don't read epic fantasy because it's too big a scope for me. I prefer smaller casts with stories that end sooner. I like medieval worlds. I like lots of magic. I like either all elves or all humans. LOVE MYTHOLOGY. The fantasy I read could be on any spectrum from sword and sorcery to fairytales. I expect the authors whose work I read to know the differences. If I pick up a fantasy romance novel expecting it to be high fantasy and instead it's a shifter romance, I'm going to be pissed. Because they aren't the same thing. If I pick up a sword and sorcery book with 2283472 different povs, I'm going to be pissed. Because they aren't the same thing.

So, in a nutshell, reading books helps you understand and learn what readers expect from those books. The Elven romance I'm writing is similar to Kathryne Kennedy's elven romance stories (minus historical settings). There are similarities because I love those books and know what readers expect. I wouldn't know or understand those things if I hadn't read her books.

 

[Devor]

To get back to the OP:

I hear the advice so often, though, and from such accomplished writers, I feel I must be missing something important. So I ask here: what specifically have you learned about writing from your reading? Here I mean reading fiction, of course. Doesn't have to be in-genre.

I think my own writing style is.... heavier, perhaps, than most of what I've read. But there are many things to learn from reading or be inspired by. There's a big part in Treasure Island that I straight-up decided to steal....

Spoiler: Treasure Island, Major Spoilers

The main characters hope to follow a map and find buried treasure. At one point, they realize that the crew they've hired to man their ship is full of pirates who intend to kill them when they find it.

It's this horrifying moment that sends chills down my back if I just think about it hard enough. In one of my stories, I hope to recreate that same kind of horror because it's just so intense.

There's other things, however. How does a person respond to being insulted? There's so many possibilities, but sometimes you haven't been exposed to many. You might think "With a come back?" or "By being hurt and running off?" or "By getting mad and hitting them?" But if you've read enough, you might also think, "By asking them Is something wrong?" or "By agreeing with them as though it were nothing" or a dozen other ways that you normally wouldn't think about.

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, Chessie, it's true it's everywhere. I was drawing from my own personal experience with writers in my local writers group (and a few colleagues of mine who are into self publishing who have this syndrome bad lol). They are literary nerds who think everything they do is pure poetry and mind bending but really it just makes no sense.

 

[skip.knox]

>Skip teaches University, have you noticed this Skip?
My colleagues complain about this, but I don't. To my eyes, undergrads generally write poorly. So did I, when I was an undergrad. I grew immensely in grad school, and I think I know wherein the difference lies. At least in my discipline, the lower division courses are heavily either multiple choice or at best short answer tests with no papers. Only with upper division to students begin to write a standard 20-page (or so) paper. It takes a few thousand words even to begin to construct a historical argument, so I argue that students are not doing history until then. They're just reading it. I shall leave to one side whether reading history enables (as distinct from helps) good historical writing.

But many of my students say that other history profs give few comments and even fewer helpful comments. That's what I recall from my own undergrad days as well. Some comments that fall roughly in the category of proofreading, coupled with some general comments at the end. If one was lucky.

From the start in grad school, though, I was receiving more like developmental edits--thoroughgoing critiques that were unblinking though not harsh. That's when I began to improve as a writer. Not by getting general remarks or learning about writing in general--even about writing history in general--but comments about how *I* write history; even more specifically, how I wrote this particular history for this paper. In short, I was being held to a professional standard, and that's how I grew.

When I began teaching, I was determined from the start to do the same for my students. I did not expect them to write like pros, but I did know how to set the bar higher than where they were. And that bar varies by individual.

The point I want to make here is that most all of us write badly to begin with. The very best help we can receive is direct, personal feedback from someone who knows the field. This is why athletes have coaches; it's a pity writers do not.

But I believe the above is true for every generation and has always been true. I can point to teacher moaning going back at least to the early 20thc. Heck, there's evidence all the way back to the ancient Greeks. The song is always the same: the current generation just doesn't have the chops their ancestors did. If the downward trend is true, we ought all to be utterly illiterate by now. Yet we keep turning out brilliant literature.

I do not deny or refute the studies, nor the experience of individual teachers. But neither can I deny the historical evidence. So there is a disconnect in our reasoning somewhere. I've never been particularly interested in education theory, especially regarding compulsory mass education, so I've not tried to explore the disconnect. But I can't help pointing it out when discussions wander into this verdant pasture. Lots to chew on here.