When Learning the Craft of Writing isn't even an option...

I was thinking about buying a book about it but I learn so much better through a hands-on approach. However I think I would benefit with a mentor or something, because while I can access such resources, I always see the ambiguity in everything. It makes everything really tough. For me its definitely psychological.

Well, everyone is different. For me, reading books on writing is useless. Workshops didn't work for me. Mentors didn't help. Maybe I'm just an idiot in that regard.

Anyway...

I've found that the best way to learn, for me, is to read a ton of what I want to write (novels, short stories), then write, write, write. And keep writing until it stops being shit.

So learning the craft of writing is an option, just Read and Write.

Nothing takes the place of reading and just putting butt in chair and writing. There is an old saying, "it takes an author about a million words before they start to understand what they are doing."

Edited to add, there should be a all of the above choice because I don't think there is any one answer that fits the mold...

I think the forums and other online resources are very helpful for learning about the industry.

In terms of learning about the craft of writing, I feel like I'm mostly self-taught....lots of reading and writing. Books about writing are helpful for consolidating what I know and helping me thinking about things in different ways though.

In the example you cite, it sounds comparable to a novelist to having a very limited number of books to read. I can imagine this would be a serious handicap.

The best way I've learned craft is through reading and critiquing the work of other people. Being able to see the mistakes of other people helps me to see my own problem areas.

Isabella Amaris said:

So, what it came down to was, women in the Renaissance era basically weren't allowed to act on the stage, and being respectable precluded you from getting involved with anything public (ie stage-related), so a woman writing a play basically had no inside knowledge on how the players (actors) would do things, or how scenes and staging worked etc etc...

Obviously, this really affected the way Cary approached her writing... It was very eye-opening to see the effects of what happens when knowledge about writing craft is something that isn't even open to a writer to learn.

Click to expand...

Ah, now, here's the thing. She wouldn't have been allowed to ACT but she would have been allowed to WATCH plays and so she had plenty of opportunity to see how a play was structured, what actors did, the space and timing etc.

To be honest with you, I clicked on all four options.

Learning is a process of acquiring knowledge by having your eyes and ears open, and making your hand numb, so to speak. I think someone that wants to ameliorate as an artist and craftsman needs to gather information by reading, listening to advice and trying to implement such advice by the trial-and-error process you've included in your poll. Of course the last step needs a good balance of self-reflection and confidence. You need to be both open to suggestions and examine advice in a critical yet unbiased way, but also not let yourself loose to everyone's opinions.

It's all about never assuming you've learned it all, and building up experience.

I believe living a wide, adventurous, do as much as you can, try everything new that comes along life is the best training for a writer. After this comes reading much and writing often.

But I do believe how-to books can be extremely helpful, and that autobiographies can also make the path much easier to travel.

Anyway, I don't see how anyone, male of female, today could have the least bit of trouble finding ten times as much knowledge about the craft of writing as they can take in. If anything, there's far too much information about writing, and too many avenues for learning. So many that I think many new writers can't take in all the conflicting advice, get confused, and don't know what to do.

There were certainly restrictions on women writers in the past, but I see none today for anyone, other than the biggest restriction of all, which is lack of talent. Talent too often gets left out of the equation.

shaldna said:

Ah, now, here's the thing. She wouldn't have been allowed to ACT but she would have been allowed to WATCH plays and so she had plenty of opportunity to see how a play was structured, what actors did, the space and timing etc.

Click to expand...

She also might have been allowed to read them.

Also, since this was the first written by a woman "under her own name" it's entirely possible that other women had published under pseudonyms. And those may have been better written despite being penned by someone with no access to training beyond observation.

I clicked all four options. I've learned more from critically analyzing other people's work than I have from any form of instruction. It's possible to learn the "craft" as people like to call it, without ever being in a formal learning situaiton.

Isabella Amaris said:

Shaldna and jennontheisland, if I'm not mistaken, plays in Renaissance times were largely constructed through interaction between the playwright and the actors/company of players, both for input on characterisation and staging, so it was pretty difficult to understand esp performance aspects without being able to mingle freely with the actors and fellow playwrights.

Click to expand...

I don't know a huge amount about staging etc, but surely being able to watch a play would give enough of an idea about how one should be written?

In much the same way that reading a book would show how a book should be written?

Perhaps I'm being a little basic here, but people have been writing for centuries and it's only been quite recently that writers have had access to sources of information on the craft, until then they were, for the most part, just making it up as they went along.

I think this is something we have to keep in mind, especially when you consider that in teh case of women, writing was a career that was frowned upon and women weren't taken as seriously as men, so there was going to be no option of a mentor to guide you, you just had to learn by reading other people's work.

In the same way one could, having seen plays, take a decent stab at writing a play. Yes, you might not know all the backstage knowledge, but you would know the structure and get an idea about how it all worked.

If the plays were a construct as you say then a person watching wouldn't know that anyway, and they would think that the play was being performed as written.

Isabella Amaris said:

Hmmm, well, first off, I don't think writers of books can necessarily learn how to write books to the best of their ability merely by reading them.

Click to expand...

And how do you think they did it before we got how-to books, courses, workshops and the internet?

For centuries writers learned to write by reading and writing. That's it. Reading and writing. repeat as necessary.

But that aside, I think it's the analogy between books and plays that is perhaps questionable. Plays can - and do -involve some very different issues of craftsmanship compared to books... So, no, watching a play performed and understanding for eg the most effective positioning of a 'Chorus' within the play would probably require more information than what can be obtained from watching a performance alone, especially since performances could be modified by the Company of players if need be... (ETA: not that I know that much about plays myself hehe, just brought this bit up because it's one of the technical areas that I understand Cary might have benefited from if she'd known about it)

Click to expand...

Yes, but the point you don't seem to be grasping is this:

Someone with NO inner knowledge of how a theatre works could watch a play and still understand the structure and the way a play is presented.

That person would most likely assume that a play is performed as written.

That person could then sit down and write a play based on both their observations and their assumptions.

Even in terms of stage directions etc, plays have always been very basic especialyl compared to screenplays, with instructions being simple, such as 'Exit left' or 'Enter Bill' etc. So I don't think a person necessarily needs a huge grasp of theatrical theory and backstage knowledge to be able to write a play in a basic sense.

Yes, they might make mistakes, but they could do it.

I think the problem Cary would have faced can be seen in these two paras... She wouldn't know the construct; she would think the play is performed as written, when in fact lots of directions within the play would not have been verbalised to the audience.

Click to expand...

See my point above. Perhaps the fact that she DIDN'T know how a play occurred was in fact a benefit to her in terms of sitting down and writing it.

What I'm trying to say is that she would ahve seen the play in it's 'perfect' form, and that is what she would have been trying to emulate, not the play in it's draft form with a list of background notes and stage directions.

Also, as mentioned above, the players had, I believe, freedom to modify the plays when performing them... for eg, my understanding is that Marlowe's Doctor Faustus was written to be very long, but with the understanding that the company of players would have the discretion to chop off certain bits/monologues/dialogue etc when performing so that, for example, the audience could get to watch the entire play before sunset (no adequate lighting after that in Renaissance times)... so, sometimes, one performance might not be identical to the next... depending on the choices the company of players made...

Click to expand...

This still happens. Try watching two performances of any play and you'll see this.


Maybe I'm not explaining this properly, so let me try to explain again:

A person reading a novel is only reading the novel.

They aren't reading all of the drafts.

They aren't reading all of the research

They aren't reading all of the notes the writer made.

They are reading the end product and that is what they based their opinions on. Sooooo, when they try to write their own novel they will do it in a way that they believe it's done, that is, to sit down and write a story, begining to end.

Most people figure out through practice what works for them. But that first novel,that first story is often the one where they just give it a go.

In simple terms, if I were inexperienced and watched a play and saw that it was just people on a stage talking to each other then I would assume that's all it would be.

So when I tried to write a play that's what I would do, people on a stage, talking to each other.

Now, there might be lots that I don't understand, but I would give it a go based on what I have witnessed.

What you have to look at is that her play isn't perfect and this is because she probably doesn't have a huge amount of experience or background in it, she's writing based on the information available to her at the time. Which is limited.

Isabella Amaris said:

Cary's limited access to information and experience arguably impacted the quality of her play.

Click to expand...

Possibly, but there's no way of knowing, and it's not an assumption I would base any argument on.

It's just that it can be of immeasurable help to have input/feedback from some kind of resource, even if it's just your peers. Are we really saying something that different from each other?

Click to expand...

I don't think we're saying different things, just looking at them differently.

You seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, to assume that people with increased resources will be a better writer.

I've spent enough time in creative writing classes to know that this is not the case. Some people, with all the access to information in the world are never going to be 'good' writers.

One could even go so far as to suggest that the increased ease with which resources and information is available actually increases the percentage of bad writers because suddenly everyone can be an 'expert'.

Perhaps it was just a poorly written play that somehow managed to get published.

Isabella Amaris said:

The author was a Viscountess, so that might have helped

Click to expand...

Self-publishing and vanity publishing have been around for a long time. It was just a matter of having the money to pay the printer. I'm guessing a vain Viscountess would have the money and connections to convince a printer to do a run of her play even if it was obviously bad enough to never have a commercial market.

I'll admit, I'm not sure what the distinction is between:

"Yes, through resources other than forums (eg books or other literature)"

and

"Yes, through resources other than the above (eg mentors/blogs)"

Isabella Amaris said:

Wow, into the second half of the 'polling period' already. And an interesting range of percentages so far. Less than one third who incorporate learning through trial and error into their process... Hmmm, for some reason, I assumed the percentage for that option would be higher, but there you go... Still a few days left though, so this might change hmmm... Thanks to all who've voted so far

Click to expand...

The last option isn't "I have easy access to advice on writing craft and still incorporate trial and error in my learning process." It's "I don't have easy access to advice on writing craft therefore I learn by trial and error."

If it was the former, I would have chosen all four options. I use a lot of trial and error, but I also have easy access to advice on writing craft. Therefore, because the fourth option is I do not have easy access to advice, I cannot truthfully select it despite a lot of error on my part.