This is something I've mulled over numerous times, particularly when I read threads on POV, tense, transitions, and other technical aspects of writing.
As writers we want to perfect those techniques (if there is any such thing as perfection versus preference in this context; I don't think there is, as such), and we spend a lot of time talking about things a reader isn't likely to consciously notice, and in many cases things a reader isn't going to care about if they do notice them. In other words, like someone working on a Ph.D. dissertation, we are hyperfocused on certain things at the expense of the big picture.
I think a lot of this stems from the fact that many of us stop reading like readers. I know how it was when I first got into writing - suddenly I was reading everything like a writer, noticing all the peculiarities of style and technique, and so on. It took a while to get to the point of being able to switch 'write mode' on and off and to go back to reading like a reader.
I think being able to read like a reader is a critical skill for writers.
One thing you'll see on writing forums any time a very popular work is discussed is a lot of people talking about how bad the writing is because of X, Y, or Z. In many cases, the aspiring writer seems baffled by the success of the work given what they see as glaring deficiencies. I think this, too, stems from reading like a writer and forgetting how to read as a reader.
It is necessary in developing the craft to be able to read critically as a writer, but it is not sufficient. In fact, if you can only do one or the other, I think you're much better off reading as a reader. This ties into technical writing versus storytelling. It is possible to be an extremely effective storyteller with mediocre writing (assessed from a purely technical perspective). It is possible to be a highly proficient writer from a technical standpoint, but to be a horrible storyteller.
When it comes to engaging readers, a writer of mediocre technical ability but superior storytelling will garner more readers and outperform in the marketplace a writer of pristine technical ability who can't tell a story.
A lot of what we discuss is miscellany, in many ways. It's interesting to talk about, as a writer, because we're digging down to the bones of the craft to see how it works. But I think sometimes we get far too bogged down in these details and lose sight of the reader experience.
Choices like POV, tense, whether you have to just a double space when you switch viewpoints or use asterisks or start a new chapter, whether you can italicize internal monologue, and so on...all of these things and related aspects of writing are stylistic choices that you can either do well or do poorly, from the reader's point of view. If you're too heavily focused on "am I allowed to do X when making a transition" you've already missed the big picture.
To me, when questions like the above arise, they can only be answered by looking at the work. The question isn't "Can I do X" because the answer to that question is always "you're damn right you can do it." The real question is "Did I do X effectively." And by 'effectively,' I'm talking about the reader experience, not the viewpoint of someone seeking to impose rules on your writing divorced of context (i.e. simply because they read those rules somewhere and decided they must always be true).
If you can string sentences together well enough to make your meaning clear, you have enough writing ability to tell a fantastic story. There isn't a person on these forums who doesn't already have that skill. So, ultimately, everything you need to know about your work boils down to its effectiveness from the point of view of the reader. That's it. And the only way you're going to get the answer to that question is if you and those critiquing your work nurture the ability to step back and read as a reader. As someone there for the story, like we all were before we got bogged down in all of the technical questions of writing[SUP]1[/SUP].
___________________________
[SUP]1[/SUP] Yes, these things tie together, because your technique will impact the effectiveness from the reader perspective. But if you forget to step back and view things from the standpoint of a pure reader, a non-writer, you'll miss the entire context in which to judge technique.
As writers we want to perfect those techniques (if there is any such thing as perfection versus preference in this context; I don't think there is, as such), and we spend a lot of time talking about things a reader isn't likely to consciously notice, and in many cases things a reader isn't going to care about if they do notice them. In other words, like someone working on a Ph.D. dissertation, we are hyperfocused on certain things at the expense of the big picture.
I think a lot of this stems from the fact that many of us stop reading like readers. I know how it was when I first got into writing - suddenly I was reading everything like a writer, noticing all the peculiarities of style and technique, and so on. It took a while to get to the point of being able to switch 'write mode' on and off and to go back to reading like a reader.
I think being able to read like a reader is a critical skill for writers.
One thing you'll see on writing forums any time a very popular work is discussed is a lot of people talking about how bad the writing is because of X, Y, or Z. In many cases, the aspiring writer seems baffled by the success of the work given what they see as glaring deficiencies. I think this, too, stems from reading like a writer and forgetting how to read as a reader.
It is necessary in developing the craft to be able to read critically as a writer, but it is not sufficient. In fact, if you can only do one or the other, I think you're much better off reading as a reader. This ties into technical writing versus storytelling. It is possible to be an extremely effective storyteller with mediocre writing (assessed from a purely technical perspective). It is possible to be a highly proficient writer from a technical standpoint, but to be a horrible storyteller.
When it comes to engaging readers, a writer of mediocre technical ability but superior storytelling will garner more readers and outperform in the marketplace a writer of pristine technical ability who can't tell a story.
A lot of what we discuss is miscellany, in many ways. It's interesting to talk about, as a writer, because we're digging down to the bones of the craft to see how it works. But I think sometimes we get far too bogged down in these details and lose sight of the reader experience.
Choices like POV, tense, whether you have to just a double space when you switch viewpoints or use asterisks or start a new chapter, whether you can italicize internal monologue, and so on...all of these things and related aspects of writing are stylistic choices that you can either do well or do poorly, from the reader's point of view. If you're too heavily focused on "am I allowed to do X when making a transition" you've already missed the big picture.
To me, when questions like the above arise, they can only be answered by looking at the work. The question isn't "Can I do X" because the answer to that question is always "you're damn right you can do it." The real question is "Did I do X effectively." And by 'effectively,' I'm talking about the reader experience, not the viewpoint of someone seeking to impose rules on your writing divorced of context (i.e. simply because they read those rules somewhere and decided they must always be true).
If you can string sentences together well enough to make your meaning clear, you have enough writing ability to tell a fantastic story. There isn't a person on these forums who doesn't already have that skill. So, ultimately, everything you need to know about your work boils down to its effectiveness from the point of view of the reader. That's it. And the only way you're going to get the answer to that question is if you and those critiquing your work nurture the ability to step back and read as a reader. As someone there for the story, like we all were before we got bogged down in all of the technical questions of writing[SUP]1[/SUP].
___________________________
[SUP]1[/SUP] Yes, these things tie together, because your technique will impact the effectiveness from the reader perspective. But if you forget to step back and view things from the standpoint of a pure reader, a non-writer, you'll miss the entire context in which to judge technique.