Skills and Projects

[Incanus]

Something I’ve been wondering about for a long time, but I never see discussed:

Don’t different writing projects require different writing skills or techniques?

For example, wouldn’t producing Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Rings require different skill sets? I should think so.

And wouldn’t that, in turn, affect how various writing topics get discussed?

Suppose I asked a specific writing question, and both JD Salinger and JRR Tolkien responded with answers. Suppose further that those answers contradicted each other.

In my case, I would almost certainly value Tolkien’s answer more because my project is far closer to Tolkien than to Salinger. And yet, if another writer was working on a contemporary angsty teen novel, Salinger’s answer would probably be more fitting for them.

There are certainly many universal ‘rules’ that apply to almost all writing projects. But that doesn’t mean all writing projects are of equal difficulty.

I sometimes think this discrepancy leads to members of this site ‘talking past one another’. And I think it’s why something like Stephen King’s book on writing can only be so helpful—it works fine if you’re writing a Stephen King novel, but that’s not what myself and plenty of others are doing at all.

So, in general, doesn’t the nature of our projects—the genre, the style, the scope—lead us to different kinds of skills to develop? Or, is it a ‘one-size-fits-all’ situation—we all need the same set of skills no matter what we’re working on?

 

[Finchbearer]

I usually try and get as much information from the OP for every post. For example I’m not particularly interested in anime style writing with all the melodrama that comes with it, but I think I can understand it enough to give a rounded response. Same for if someone wanted to write a mind bending sci-fi novel, I wouldn’t go in assuming that we were discussing medieval inspired fantasy. Sometimes I think it’s well worth gaining different perspectives to your own too, so someone coming in from a different background might give me an idea I had not previously thought about. What makes us great is that we’re all coming from different places, but I do agree that it’s also what can cause friction. Is this what you mean?

 

[Incanus]

I certainly value the different perspectives to be had here, and elsewhere.

There is friction sometimes, but I usually avoid that. I'm talking more about how different experiences and skills are built up due to the nature of the project being worked on.

There was the discussion about structure a while back where I could not understand what my peers were saying no matter how many times I read their posts.

I remember years ago when someone said something like - writing novels is easy. I really have to wonder what that person was working on, because I've found writing a novel to be one of the most difficult things in the world to do (or, at least, to do well). It sort of sounds like the person wasn't working on anything worthwhile (totally a matter of opinion--I'm not trying to be judgmental), but I have no earthly idea.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Slam dunking a basketball is difficult for me, but I probably could've done it if I'd worked hard in my athletic prime. If I was seven feet tall, it would be easy.

The principle is the same, except for an obvious physical trait to point at. Brains work differently.

However, you could also be 100% right that they're writing crap, heh heh. I also wouldn't say that writing a novel is one of the most difficult things in the world to do. I wouldn't want to exaggerate the reality in either direction as it will be a personal discovery of pain tolerance, heh heh.

I certainly value the different perspectives to be had here, and elsewhere.

There is friction sometimes, but I usually avoid that. I'm talking more about how different experiences and skills are built up due to the nature of the project being worked on.

There was the discussion about structure a while back where I could not understand what my peers were saying no matter how many times I read their posts.

I remember years ago when someone said something like - writing novels is easy. I really have to wonder what that person was working on, because I've found writing a novel to be one of the most difficult things in the world to do (or, at least, to do well). It sort of sounds like the person wasn't working on anything worthwhile (totally a matter of opinion--I'm not trying to be judgmental), but I have no earthly idea.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

You could take the example one step further: writing a children's book versus an adult literary novel. So, yes, there are variants in the skill set.

 

[Incanus]

And I may very well be a dwarf trying to dunk a basketball, and wondering what's wrong-----

I wonder if a related issue may be a question of what standards we each have.

It may be questionable, but I hold myself to the highest possible standard. I would very much like my works to stand alongside the very best fantasy works of the past 100 years or so. I don't actually think I can achieve that, but I aspire to it nonetheless. On the one hand, it drives me bonkers always falling short, but on the other, it keeps me always trying to do better, better, better.

When I say it's about the hardest thing to do, I'm talking about creating something like Lord of the Rings. How many are capable of something like that? As far as I know, only a single person in all of history.

 

[Finchbearer]

It sounds like you’re setting yourself unrealistic standards of success. Perfectionism will stop you from just writing and getting the book published.

On your original post, I think some writers tend to specialise and write genre fiction, but I would have thought a good writer could try their hand at many different styles, and not be restricted to just fantasy, or just thriller etc

 

[Penpilot]

Every novel I've written and every short story I've written has been different. Each has required something different of me. There are always some basic foundational things, but each project is unique, regardless of what genre they're in.

I try to never turn away advice/tips/information/lessons from any field/genre of writing, because you never know what will be useful. IMHO, it's about taking all information with a grain of salt, evaluating it, and taking what's useful and discarding the rest.

Because we're all different in what our needs are, so IMHO, part of this is about knowing yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, and being open to solutions wherever they come from. What may be a chore for one person may be a breeze for another.

For example, for me, the process of writing and finishing a story is easy in comparison to writing cover letters, synopses, and finding agents, etc., to send a manuscript out to. I could do the former all day long. Trying to do the latter, it's like walking around in cement shoes, while wearing a cement suit. I'd rather sit on a bag of tacks. But I'm sure there are some who can knock those things out in an afternoon, while whistling a jaunty tune.

There isn't a universal one-size-fits-all thing to this, but I do believe there's one skill every writer should have. They should be able to look themselves in the mirror, shed all the BS, and be honest with themselves about what their goals are, why they haven't been met, and what they're willing to do to make their goals a reality.

 

[Prince of Spires]

It depends.

There are plenty of universal aspects of writing that cary over from one style and genre to another. And there is plenty of stuff that partially caries over, but is less important. Of course, there are also lots of things that are unique to a genre or very representative of a genre.

Easy examples, creating a new language (like Tolkien did) is pretty much unique to (Epic) Fantasy. On the other hand, what makes a good scene is pretty universal. Worldbuilding is by no means unique to SciFi / Fantasy, but it's a lot more important than it is in Romance.

It gets a lot more complicated than that of course. Because it's also unique to each writer. Within Fantasy, Tolkien did languages (like pretty much no one else did), while Feist never bothered for instance. George R.R. Martin dug into grimdark, politics, and deep POV for Game of Thrones, while Mistborn by Sanderson is a much more whimsical heist / comming of age story. Both require different things again.

To complicate matters even further, even for a single author different things become important in different works. Just compare Game of Thrones to something like Windhaven, both from Martin, and you see very different styles and very different aspects that are important to the work.

So yes, it's important to keep the specific work of the author in mind when answering a question. At the same time, good storytelling is universal.

It may be questionable, but I hold myself to the highest possible standard. I would very much like my works to stand alongside the very best fantasy works of the past 100 years or so. I don't actually think I can achieve that, but I aspire to it nonetheless.

What I found very instructional, was reading the History of Middle Earth series published by Christopher Tolkien. They're academic works on Tolkien's scribbles and notes and early writing. And Tolkien's early writing was pretty bad. In fact, I'd say that it's a lot worse than what many people here put up for critique. However, he grew a lot as writer (in part because he received a lot of great feedback from other writers). So as long as you keep writing and improving, you can get to a place where you can put out masterpieces. It just takes a lot of practice before you get there.

 

[Incanus]

Tolkien had a pretty severe case of 'perfectionism', so I'm not in bad company there. It doesn't stop me, but it may be one of the reasons I write so slowly (about 100 words per hour).

I pretty well agree with everything Penpilot said here. Every story is a different beast with a different challenge (even flash fiction). I never chuck out advice out of hand--good ideas can come from anywhere.

I've read the History of Middle Earth series, and I'm currently going through the LotR early drafts right now (on and off). I have a different take--I was impressed by the quality of writing in first drafts for the most part. The Book of Lost Tales is tough to read because of the biblical style employed there. But that's not the same as bad writing.

After reading some of GRRM's non-Ice and Fire works, I had to update my position. I realized I'm a fan of ASoIaF, but not a Martin fan. Most everything else he's done (that I've seen) I found to be pretty poor. Kind of a bummer.

 

[Mad Swede]

I once asked my editor about this and her reply was very succinct.

There are two basic skills which you must have for all forms of professional and semi-professional writing: correct grammar and correct spelling. As my editor puts it, with modern computers and software there is virtually no excuse for getting these wrong. Even I, as someone with severe dyslexia, do my utmost to ensure that the work that goes to my publisher is as free of incorrect grammar and spelling as I can achieve.

For fiction writing (as in novels and short stories) my editor says that irrespective of whether you are writing literary fiction or genre fiction and irrespective of genre your work should have a theme, well structured prose, a developed plot, good characterisation and good character development, good dialogue and some form of deeper meaning. The balance between these varies between novel length work and short stories, but all these elements should be present. Applying these in a written work is a skill in itself, a skill any fiction writer should have.

With that said my editor also stated that what varies with project is what plot structures, tropes, literary devices and conventions you use.

 

[The Dark One]

Writing a novel is simple.

Unless, of course, you want to write a good novel. Then it's hard.

It does get easier with experience but in my own case - whatever skills I have I bring to every project and they have been fairly varied: off-beat crime, historical, spec fiction and sci-fi. My latest is spec fiction/romance, so different again - but I'd say it's the best thing I've done.

 

[Jennifer Luke]

Something I’ve been wondering about for a long time, but I never see discussed:

Don’t different writing projects require different writing skills or techniques?

For example, wouldn’t producing Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Rings require different skill sets? I should think so.

And wouldn’t that, in turn, affect how various writing topics get discussed?

Suppose I asked a specific writing question, and both JD Salinger and JRR Tolkien responded with answers. Suppose further that those answers contradicted each other.

In my case, I would almost certainly value Tolkien’s answer more because my project is far closer to Tolkien than to Salinger. And yet, if another writer was working on a contemporary angsty teen novel, Salinger’s answer would probably be more fitting for them.

There are certainly many universal ‘rules’ that apply to almost all writing projects. But that doesn’t mean all writing projects are of equal difficulty.

I sometimes think this discrepancy leads to members of this site ‘talking past one another’. And I think it’s why something like Stephen King’s book on writing can only be so helpful—it works fine if you’re writing a Stephen King novel, but that’s not what myself and plenty of others are doing at all.

So, in general, doesn’t the nature of our projects—the genre, the style, the scope—lead us to different kinds of skills to develop? Or, is it a ‘one-size-fits-all’ situation—we all need the same set of skills no matter what we’re working on?

Totally agree! Different writing projects require different skills and techniques. It's like comparing apples and oranges - what works for Catcher in the Rye won't necessarily work for Lord of the Rings.

It's essential to consider the specific needs of your project when seeking writing advice. While there are universal principles, the nuances of genre, style, and scope matter. Finding resources and mentors who get your project's needs is key.

It's not one-size-fits-all. Writers need to adapt and develop skills tailored to their unique project.

 

[Rexenm]

You gotta realise at some point that story telling is an art form as well. I get your angle, but something cultural is more likely in the mix. For some reason, demographics don’t do it.

On the one hand, it drives me bonkers always falling short, but on the other, it keeps me always trying to do better, better, better.

Routine helps, not only doing it - but brainstorming.

If the story Catcher in the Rye was more like LOTR, then why would it be banned?? The LOTR was not banned, as far as I can see, and it spawned many subcultures and spinoffs, but it was very pensive.

There is a balance of two conflicting worlds, with two conflicting morals - Arthur is about an old guy and a kid with a sword, so the gears start turning there. I’d like to bring in Le Morte D’Arthur by Mallory, not as contemporary, but something different, much in the way that the previous two discussed were. So at this point, we are all wondering, what is a religious text?

The point I’m trying to make, besides the obvious illusion, is that there are seperate, though distinctly different works, maybe with clarity revealed upon them by their similarities rather than their absurdities. The fact that there is a Merlin and Arthur getting along elsewhere, is also acceptable conclusion to come to.

 

[bhart]

Something I’ve been wondering about for a long time, but I never see discussed:

Don’t different writing projects require different writing skills or techniques?

For example, wouldn’t producing Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Rings require different skill sets? I should think so.

And wouldn’t that, in turn, affect how various writing topics get discussed?

Suppose I asked a specific writing question, and both JD Salinger and JRR Tolkien responded with answers. Suppose further that those answers contradicted each other.

In my case, I would almost certainly value Tolkien’s answer more because my project is far closer to Tolkien than to Salinger. And yet, if another writer was working on a contemporary angsty teen novel, Salinger’s answer would probably be more fitting for them.

There are certainly many universal ‘rules’ that apply to almost all writing projects. But that doesn’t mean all writing projects are of equal difficulty.

I sometimes think this discrepancy leads to members of this site ‘talking past one another’. And I think it’s why something like Stephen King’s book on writing can only be so helpful—it works fine if you’re writing a Stephen King novel, but that’s not what myself and plenty of others are doing at all.

So, in general, doesn’t the nature of our projects—the genre, the style, the scope—lead us to different kinds of skills to develop? Or, is it a ‘one-size-fits-all’ situation—we all need the same set of skills no matter what we’re working on?

I think there are times when books require different skills or techniques, but there is also general things that most authors know and follow but make it their own. That's why authors like Salinger, Tolkien, King, etc are so popular. They have taken a genre and put their own stamp on it and written works of art, and even created a cult following of a sort. I say you follow your heart, or maybe your hand and write how and what you want to write, it is art and there are no rules in art.

 

[Incanus]

I think there are times when books require different skills or techniques, but there is also general things that most authors know and follow but make it their own. That's why authors like Salinger, Tolkien, King, etc are so popular. They have taken a genre and put their own stamp on it and written works of art, and even created a cult following of a sort. I say you follow your heart, or maybe your hand and write how and what you want to write, it is art and there are no rules in art.

I agree that it is good for a writer to make certain skills 'their own'.

For myself, I am very much following my heart and writing just the kind of book I would want to find and read myself. At least, I'm trying to do that.

Despite some universal aspects to writing, I find a huge gap between writers like Tolkien and Salinger. The former is almost entirely invention and imagination, the latter is almost entirely observation and reflection. Salinger didn't have to invent New York, or angsty teens--they'd been there all along.

For myself, I'm a fan of invention. My mind responds to it. Reflection I find rather boring for the most part, which is why I haven't re-read 'Catcher', and have left it where I found it decades ago.

 

[pmmg]

Something I’ve been wondering about for a long time, but I never see discussed:

Don’t different writing projects require different writing skills or techniques?

For example, wouldn’t producing Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Rings require different skill sets? I should think so.

And wouldn’t that, in turn, affect how various writing topics get discussed?

Suppose I asked a specific writing question, and both JD Salinger and JRR Tolkien responded with answers. Suppose further that those answers contradicted each other.

In my case, I would almost certainly value Tolkien’s answer more because my project is far closer to Tolkien than to Salinger. And yet, if another writer was working on a contemporary angsty teen novel, Salinger’s answer would probably be more fitting for them.

There are certainly many universal ‘rules’ that apply to almost all writing projects. But that doesn’t mean all writing projects are of equal difficulty.

I sometimes think this discrepancy leads to members of this site ‘talking past one another’. And I think it’s why something like Stephen King’s book on writing can only be so helpful—it works fine if you’re writing a Stephen King novel, but that’s not what myself and plenty of others are doing at all.

So, in general, doesn’t the nature of our projects—the genre, the style, the scope—lead us to different kinds of skills to develop? Or, is it a ‘one-size-fits-all’ situation—we all need the same set of skills no matter what we’re working on?

Don’t different writing projects require different writing skills or techniques?

Of course.

For example, wouldn’t producing Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Rings require different skill sets? I should think so.

I think they may also require different brains. Tolkien was never going to write Catcher in the Rye. In spite of his skill, it was not in him to write it.

And wouldn’t that, in turn, affect how various writing topics get discussed?

Since you cant even get people to agree the sky is blue, of course ones experience with things will shade how they answer questions. Are there many people? Yes. Do they all think differently from each other? Yes.

The challenge is, and what I try to strive for, is things that are more universally true, before I offer them as advice.

Will someone come along and say, but my experience is...

You can bet your house on it.

Are both pieces of advice equally useful?

Yes and No. If you are lucky, you get to evaluate the reasons and see what makes sense to you. If one has no reasons, I would give them less attention. If the reasons aren't good ones, even less than that.

And I think it’s why something like Stephen King’s book on writing can only be so helpful—it works fine if you’re writing a Stephen King novel, but that’s not what myself and plenty of others are doing at all.

A lot of truth in that. What Steven King says works great for Steven King. But I am not Steven King. Some of what he says seems more universal, some not. How many people have the luxury to write until noon and then go for a long walk everyday?


So, in general, doesn’t the nature of our projects—the genre, the style, the scope—lead us to different kinds of skills to develop? Or, is it a ‘one-size-fits-all’ situation—we all need the same set of skills no matter what we’re working on?

Yes and no.

We all have to learn the skill of how to string sentences together, how to engage, how to bring to life (not literally), how to make the art.

But I dont need to know how to write scenes that grow in suspense until the final horror is revealed if I am not a horror writer. It may be something to have in a tool bag, but if all I write is fluffy happy fiction, I don't need to learn to master the darkest stuff. That can be someone else's skill.

If I take a book like Hunt for Red October. Imagine the love of and time spent researching everything submarines that it took to build his suspenseful, and real-feeling political thriller. Does a romance author need that? --Nope.

I will never write a book like Red October. I just dont care to become so technically accurate and show it on a page.

 

[skip.knox]

>I hold myself to the highest possible standard.
I do not, for the rather pragmatic reason that I do not know what is possible. I know what I've read, but I've not read everything. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that what I would call highest standard someone else would not.

I think of my stories as I would a child. Before sending it out into the world I do my best to feed it, clothe it, teach it, and in general make it presentable and engaging to strangers. It can always be better, but if I insist on perfection, the poor dear will never get past the front porch.

>I would very much like my works to stand alongside the very best fantasy works of the past 100 years or so.
The only way for me to know this is for a hundred years to elapse, by which time I am quite dead. So again, there's no way for me to judge.

To return to the initial post, I'll agree with everyone else in saying: sure. But what's the point there? Are you reacting to some prescriptive essay telling writers what they ought to do? Or are you reacting to some internal dialog that claims you are falling short here or there? Or is there some other motivation and aim?

 

[Incanus]

I really should have said, "I hold myself to a very high standard." (One reason I rely on revision so much!) The standard is my own and no one else's. I would likely have a hard time holding myself to someone else's, even if I thought I understood it.

The child analogy is a good one, and I've used it myself many times.

Works of the past 100 years would include something published yesterday, so no need to wait. The way I intended it, the 100 years have already elapsed. (But I'd like to include Lord Dunsany, the best of which is well over 100 years old.)

The point here is a tad abstract, and I had great difficulty in writing the OP; it took several attempts.

Another way to put it--not all advice is going to be of equal value to us, based on the nature of the work we're doing. It's not about questioning the intentions or authenticity of the advice-giver. It's not about advice being 'wrong' or 'bad', but about appropriateness.

If I ask advice for my project, and both Tolkien and Salinger responded, I would give much more weight to Tolkien as his project is much, much closer to mine. Someone writing a contemporary YA novel would go the opposite way, and rightly so.

I often think some of the discussions at this site don't seem to take this into account. Should they, or shouldn't they? That's why I started this thread.

 

[pmmg]

I wonder how much those writers who wrote those works that stood the test of time fretted over the things we look at as the bars they set for us. Did Dicken's for instance write a 100 revisions, and send out for proofs over and over again...or did it just kind of happen, right place, right time kind of thing.