Readers

[Jewel101]

I wasn't sure where to put this, but seeing the intent of this poll i decided to post it in several places.

[Titus Raylake]

Shouldn't writers read the most? What else makes them qualified to write in their chosen category?

I sure hope writers are readers, otherwise we'll be seeing a lot of low-quality books :) .

[sunandshadow]

How much do you have to read to be a reader? I used to read a lot more than I do now, and what I read now is more often non-fiction and graphic novels rather than novels. Oh and fanfiction, I read lots of fanfiction. So I would consider myself to still be a reader, but a purist might not.

[Pthom]

I'm waiting for someone to click on just "writer"

Mainly, to read the comments that will follow ;)

[Euan H.]

Ask, and ye shall receive. I clicked on just writer.

I don't read. Like ever! I mean, who needs that stuff anyway, right? If I start reading, then I'll like, be just re-hashing everyone else's work anyway, y'know? I don't need to read, I have a unique goddamn artistic vision! And I don't care who knows it! It's going to change publishing forever!

Anyway, books are boring.

[Danger Jane]

That's like asking someone "Are you a mother or a sister?"

Two different things.

[Mistook]

This question just keeps coming up, and every time I see it, it seems like just another way for all the hardcore fiction fans out there to congratulate themselves on being such dedicated readers. Every time somebody sticks their neck out and admits that they don't read much, or at least not lately, that's the cue for the villagers to light up their torches and run the poor bastard out of town.

I understand the concept that the more you read fiction, the more you'll absorb about the craft. But it's just a concept. A person can read every day of their lives and be a bad writer if they don't know how to parse what they're reading in terms of writing techniques.

The other concept, that writing skill can't exist in a reading vacuum, or that skill diminishes the minute one stops reading, seems contrary to the very definition of "skill". I can draw. It's true if I analyze the drawings of others I can pick up some techniques to make my drawing better. But I can also develop my own techniques, and I can also use nature as a model. And it's ridiculous to think that my drawing skill would actually diminish if I were to never look at another illustration. The same could be said of playing a guitar or singing, sculpting, or any other creative skill.

The reason I don't read much any more, and the reason most people I know read fiction only rarely is because most books simply don't have any appeal to a large segment of the population. I tend to think that pop and literary, both have become way too polarized, and way too elitist to appeal to anything but niche audiences these days. How is that ever going to change if ever writer mimics every other writer?

[scribbler1382]

:Jaw:

[ANNIE]

Ask, and ye shall receive. I clicked on just writer.

I don't read. Like ever! I mean, who needs that stuff anyway, right? If I start reading, then I'll like, be just re-hashing everyone else's work anyway, y'know? I don't need to read, I have a unique goddamn artistic vision! And I don't care who knows it! It's going to change publishing forever!

Anyway, books are boring.

If books are boring- umm then what does that make yours?:Shrug:

just wondering.

[Mike Coombes]

How much do you have to read to be a reader? I used to read a lot more than I do now, and what I read now is more often non-fiction and graphic novels rather than novels. Oh and fanfiction, I read lots of fanfiction. So I would consider myself to still be a reader, but a purist might not.

That must make me a purist. Indiscriminate reading is worse than not reading.

[sunandshadow]

That must make me a purist. Indiscriminate reading is worse than not reading.
:Huh: Why's that? Worse for what?

[scarletpeaches]

I believe that a writer should read a lot, otherwise how can he/she possibly know how to craft a book? I don't believe at all that you absorb other people's styles, unless you have no voice of your own. Reading teaches you the mechanics, writing teaches you the art. So you have to do both. You wouldn't dream of trying to cook a meal without reading a recipe; otherwise you'd end up with an unedible mess. You could eat it, but it wouldn't go down too well...

That said, I am a bookworm out of love for literature. I read because I want to, not because I feel I OUGHT to, not out of any conscious desire to study the ins and outs of writing, which paradoxically makes me a better writer (well, in my opinion anyway). :D

[Mistook]

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on the fiction that's out there, or the people who love to read it. I'm just saying there are other audiences that don't have any preference for what's available. It's simply a matter of personal tastes.

Not everybody cares about dragons and fantasy lore. Not everybody digs science fiction, romance, or the other big genre's that crank out the same kind of material year after year. Most pop genre fiction these days seems to require almost a rite of initiation in order for a reader to consider themselves "in the loop". Book covers don't help. Most are off-putting and/or ugly to the uninitiated. There's a subtle forcefield around genre fiction that wards off new readers. But the same kind of thing surrounds literary. Literary fiction these days barely has to make sense to the average reader. Many works seem to be lacking that most essential ingredient - a point. And again, only the initiated can appreciate "crumbs in the butter" metaphores for life that end on notes so highly philosophical that to the average reader it appears the work was simply abandoned on a random page.

Not to say that I, and the dullards in my circle don't read. Non-fic, and humor books are all the rage, as well as how-to books, self-help, and even biographies. True crime also has a steady readership with the people I know. But for fiction, they turn to movies and/or comic books - not because they're too stupid to appreciate a novel length work of fiction, but because the fiction on the stands just doesn't tell the kinds of stories they find compelling.

I'm writing a novel right now for a few reasons. For one thing, I simply want to see if I can actually do it. But behind that, my motivation is to write the kind of story I'd like to read... the kind I never see for sale at the book stores.

Maybe the experiment is doomed to failure, but I'm not going to lie and say I read tons of fiction these days just to fit in around here.

[Euan H.]

If books are boring- umm then what does that make yours?:Shrug:

just wondering.
I believe it would make it tongue in cheek. :kiss:

The idea that you can learn to write without reading extensively is incomprehensible to me. How do you obtain your frame of reference on what constitutes good writing unless you read extensively? If a person doesn't read a lot, it is *impossible* for them to write well, because they don't know what good writing *is*.

[I want to write] the kind I never see for sale at the book stores.
No offence, but if you can't find fiction that you like in bookstores, then either (1) you're not looking hard enough, or (2) the kind of story you like isn't going to work well as a novel*, which means your novel prolly won't work either. I'm just saying...

*Although personally I can't imagine a story that would work solely in one medium. I included (2) through a desire for completeness, not because I think it's a likely alternative.

[Mistook]

I believe it would make it tongue in cheek. :kiss:
The idea that you can learn to write without reading extensively is incomprehensible to me. How do you obtain your frame of reference on what constitutes good writing unless you read extensively? If a person doesn't read a lot, it is *impossible* for them to write well, because they don't know what good writing *is*.




At some point you're going to have to take the training wheels off that bike and show you can ride like a big kid. I understand, it's incomprehensible how those two-wheelers can keep their balance, and we don't want to scuff our knees do we?

[Titus Raylake]

Before starting a new manuscript, I read a lot of books in the same category as the one I want to write.

After I start working on the manuscript, I don't read much. I find that, when I read while in the process of writing a book, I tend to mimic the writing of other authors.

A simple solution to whether you can read and not copy off other authors, in my opinion. You can have your cake and eat it too :).

[sunandshadow]

I'm also writing a novel because the kind I want to read I can never find at a bookstore. (It's not because what I want to write bears no relation to existing novels, it's just an unusual combination of elements and a complex plot form that many writers avoid because it's difficult and only good for telling stories about the relationships among a group of people, while a lot of writers would rather focus on a fight or romance between two characters or factions.)

Anyway, my point is that even though I can't find any examples of exactly what I want to write, I can still study the various elements wherever they occur in other books/movies/whatever. All fiction has fundamental things in common, and you never know what you might benefit from reading. You can hone your ear for dialogue by watching subtitled movies and anime. You can come to a greater understanding of scene and sequel in novels by studying episodic tv shows and comic book issues. You can learn how to make your science fictional characters more personable by reading a romance novel. Even non-fiction is useful because you can get great ideas for your worldbuilding and your characters' philosophies by reading non-fiction.

If you're primarily a writer, the point of reading is to learn how to write better, so the best thing to read is anything you can learn from. But the same token, if you're not learning anything it would be silly to force yourself to read, you might as well spend your time writing instead.

It's pretty absurd to complain that genre fiction is consistent from year to year and packaged for genre readers. That's like complaining that dogs always give birth to puppies who grow up to be more dogs and never giraffes. The point of selling books by genre is to help readers find books they will enjoy reading (because of course they will only buy books they think they will enjoy reading). A genre is just a time-saving convention, not something with any metaphysical significance.

[scribbler1382]

You can concoct all the inane analogies you want, but the simple fact is if you don't read, you can write all you want but unless your uncle works for Knopf, you will NEVER be published. To think otherwise is at the least naive. At the most it's insulting and lazy.

[ANNIE]

I believe it would make it tongue in cheek. :kiss:

The idea that you can learn to write without reading extensively is incomprehensible to me. How do you obtain your frame of reference on what constitutes good writing unless you read extensively? If a person doesn't read a lot, it is *impossible* for them to write well, because they don't know what good writing *is*.
.

I thought so, but you never know around here:kiss: read on!

[Coco82]

Both. I love to read all sorts of books and am constantly thinking of things to add to my WIP and future projects.

[Christine N.]

Both. I love to read all sorts of books and am constantly thinking of things to add to my WIP and future projects.

Me too. I'm a voracious reader. Always have been. Of course, my reading was nutured by an aunt who's a librarian and gave books for every occasion. LOL.

I only started writing (well, for 'real' anyway, for serious, five years ago) and I love to read, especially in my genre/age group. But I've also recently discovered Jennifer Weiner, and her brand of chick-lit is wonderful. It's nice to read grownup stuff for a change.

I like anything that's a good story. I like to write a good story too :)

[Vanessa]

Can I be both? I'm a Reader and Writer, well at least I think so of the latter.

[blissgirl]

My reading wanes and waxes depending on what's going on in my life. If nothing else, I try to read the newspaper everyday.

I find reading to be like studying, in a sense, for writers. Reading teaches us how to properly use grammar and improves our spelling. It forces us to use our imaginations which enhances our creativity. I have been reading a lot lately and I feel that is part of the reason I am almost done with my novella.

Someone mentioned above that reading will force us to rehash what we have read. This is possible. But reading allows us to go beyond what we have read and into the depths of our minds. We generally do not know the outcome of the story we are reading, so while doing so, our mind suggests possible outcomes. If the story does not end up the way we imagine, we can use our brainstormed conclusions to write our own stories.

My preference in reading is books that are about people. I realize this is very general, but to narrow it down, my preference is books written in the 70s and that are true or mostly true. I enjoy these books most because they give a very honest feeling for the character and help me develop my characters to be more realistic. I am also a Stephen King fan.

My writing preference is horror/suspense. Although I have read a lot of Stephen King, his style is much more supernatural and my style is more psychological. You will not see his stories rehashed in mine. And by reading true stories and interviews, I can make my characters more realistic, which I believe increases the fright factor of my stories.

I think it is very important to read, regardless of what you choose. I can't stand old British books like Wuthering Heights or anything like that. Does that make me unconventional? Perhaps. But I think any reading is better than none. Peoples' taste will change with time and reading helps boost their brain power and creativity. That, I believe, is most important for a writer.

[kikazaru]

I am always astounded when I meet people who don't care to eat (and I have met a few) they eat enough to survive but not from any real enjoyment - they pick, they complain, they leave things on their plate because they don't care for the colour or texture. When I meet people who don't read, I feel the same astonishment. Imo reading like eating, is not only a necessity in life, but an absolute pleasure that appeals to all the senses, and best yet it's appeal is larger than life because you can use your imagination. Everything you read is heightened, the sights, colours, feelings, sounds, smells and tastes described, become almost more vivid that they do in real life because you "are there" - you are an active participant in the book and it comes alive.

It is not a coincidence that you can savour food or savour a good book - reading is a sensual pleasure like eating dark chocolate, or a warm ripe peach. Just as there is a correlation between sensuality and food, there is also one between writing and reading. Fussy eaters make inhibited lovers - the mechanics are understood, but the joie de vivre is lacking and imo, writers who don't enjoy reading themselves, can't understand and therefore inspire, the pleasure the readers get from mere words on a page.

[Euan H.]

At some point you're going to have to take the training wheels off that bike and show you can ride like a big kid. I understand, it's incomprehensible how those two-wheelers can keep their balance, and we don't want to scuff our knees do we?
And this is relevant how exactly?

If you can't ride a bike, you'll find out very quickly when you get on one and try to ride. You can teach yourself to ride a bike without reference to other people, because you have a standard to aim for: not falling over.

But you can't teach yourself to write this way, as if you're not reading, you don't have a standard to aim for. How do you tell if you're succeeding in what you're doing or not? If you're reading a lot, it is possible* that you'll be able to get an idea of how good your writing is by comparing it to your internalized standard of writing that you like. But if you don't read a lot, then where do your criteria come from when you are trying to judge the worth or otherwise of what you have written?

A better analogy than learning to ride a bike would be that you are trying to teach yourself to compose music--but you don't listen to any music, because you don't enjoy it. See? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

*OKay, I know judging the worth of one's own work is hard (and James A Ritchie will probably jump in in a minute and say that he never judges the worth of his own work), but all writers do it to some extent--otherwise, how are you going to decide what to rewrite?

[Jewel101]

And this is relevant how exactly?

If you can't ride a bike, you'll find out very quickly when you get on one and try to ride. You can teach yourself to ride a bike without reference to other people, because you have a standard to aim for: not falling over.

But you can't teach yourself to write this way, as if you're not reading, you don't have a standard to aim for. How do you tell if you're succeeding in what you're doing or not? If you're reading a lot, it is possible* that you'll be able to get an idea of how good your writing is by comparing it to your internalized standard of writing that you like. But if you don't read a lot, then where do your criteria come from when you are trying to judge the worth or otherwise of what you have written?

A better analogy than learning to ride a bike would be that you are trying to teach yourself to compose music--but you don't listen to any music, because you don't enjoy it. See? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?

*OKay, I know judging the worth of one's own work is hard (and James A Ritchie will probably jump in in a minute and say that he never judges the worth of his own work), but all writers do it to some extent--otherwise, how are you going to decide what to rewrite?

here here!

and are there seruously no readers roaming this site? hmm