Reading as a Writer/Reading as a Reader

Lifelongdagger · Jan 22, 2012

This is something I have only just become aware of in my own reading. That thing where you no longer read as a reader - no longer read free from textual analysis. No longer read for fun. And God, I miss it. But since taking my writing seriously, analysing the bejesus out of it, analysing the writing of others, I cannot help reading anything without unconsciously critiquing the bloody thing.

But here's what I've noticed. Readers - non-writers - don't seem to do that. Where I see plot-holes, poor word choice, or poor sentence structure, they'll just skip all that and say, 'Well, that was a good book. Enjoyed that.'

This revelation has come to light after reading two particularly badly edited books for which whole swathes of 'writerly' errors appear to have gone unnoticed by a plethora of readers.

It appears to me a reader is far more forgiving than a fellow writer.

So here's the thing. Are we, as writers, too hard on each other? Are we seeking a perfection in our writing, adhering to a set of writerly rules, the reader simply doesn't care about. Do we pull ourselves - and each other - to pieces needlessly, when all the reader wants is a good story?

randi.lee · Jan 22, 2012

As a trained actor, it is now difficult for me to watch movies without feeling disappointed with how those in movies and on television are performing. It is not because I feel that I am better than them in any way, it is because I now "know" what "good acting" is. Based on my years of training, I can pick out emotionality and technique and if it is not there I am simply not interested in the film.

I find this true for all trades, including writing. If the emotion is not there, if the technique is lacking, it becomes harder for us to enjoy what we read because our brains are now tuned in to examining those things.

In my opinion, it is not that we believe ourselves to be better than anyone else. We are simply trained to adhere to certain levels of standards and when those standards are not met we can not help but feel a sense of dejection.

A. K. Fotinos-Hoyer · Jan 22, 2012

I think the critical writer is something that can be turned on or off to an extent if you are conscious of it. When I read a MS for a CP or as a Beta, I read much differently than I do when reading for pleasure. When I read for pleasure, I focus on the story, and less on the writer's technique.

There are sometimes issues which will jump out at me, but I think I would have noticed something being wrong with the story before anyways, and just might not have been able to define it as well as I can now that I'm a writer too.

bearilou · Jan 22, 2012

A. K. Fotinos-Hoyer said:
I think the critical writer is something that can be turned on or off to an extent if you are conscious of it. When I read a MS for a CP or as a Beta, I read much differently than I do when reading for pleasure. When I read for pleasure, I focus on the story, and less on the writer's technique.

I'd like it if I could ever get my critical reading eye to turn on. I start off reading, trying to analyze but usually getting so caught up in the story I forget and by the end, I've been swept along and not paying attention to those things I had set out to analyze. By the time I close the book I'll remember 'well nuts, I was supposed to be reading that with a critical eye'.

A. K. Fotinos-Hoyer said:
There are sometimes issues which will jump out at me, but I think I would have noticed something being wrong with the story before anyways, and just might not have been able to define it as well as I can now that I'm a writer too.

Yes. Absolutely. There will always be things that jump out at me while I read. I can't be sure if it's because I've come a long way in my writing in general that they would only leap out now that I have more knowledge or if they are something that I would have noticed anyway.

DeleyanLee · Jan 22, 2012

Lifelongdagger said:
So here's the thing. Are we, as writers, too hard on each other? Are we seeking a perfection in our writing, adhering to a set of writerly rules, the reader simply doesn't care about. Do we pull ourselves - and each other - to pieces needlessly, when all the reader wants is a good story?

This is something I've noted to many other writers on various sites and in various discussions, only to be told that I'm insane and making things up. Glad to see I'm not alone in the observation.

To answer your question: Yes, I think you're right.

I find that rather sad, actually.

A. K. Fotinos-Hoyer said:
I think the critical writer is something that can be turned on or off to an extent if you are conscious of it. When I read a MS for a CP or as a Beta, I read much differently than I do when reading for pleasure. When I read for pleasure, I focus on the story, and less on the writer's technique.

There are sometimes issues which will jump out at me, but I think I would have noticed something being wrong with the story before anyways, and just might not have been able to define it as well as I can now that I'm a writer too.

This is pretty much my experience. This is also how I now do commentary on unpublished works I read--as a reader first. Read for pleasure, as a reader does, and when I hit a snag, a bump, a block, an urge to throw the book against the wall, I have the tools on the writer's side of the experience to analyze what the problem is to discuss it with my friend. My betas and I have found that this type of commentary is far more helpful to us than what we've gotten from other critique partners.

bearilou said:
I'd like it if I could ever get my critical reading eye to turn on. I start off reading, trying to analyze but usually getting so caught up in the story I forget and by the end, I've been swept along and not paying attention to those things I had set out to analyze. By the time I close the book I'll remember 'well nuts, I was supposed to be reading that with a critical eye'.

This happens to me all the time, when I'm lucky.

That's why I've always taken the first step of analyzing any book to read it through as a reader first. By the end of the reading, I know what parts impressed me, what parts disappointed, etc. And that's when I go back, with the expectations of knowing what's in the story, and do my figuring out of what set that part up so well/badly, go into the dissecting of the sentences and word choices, etc. I need to know what I'm focusing my attention on specifically, instead of broadly.

If that makes sense.

A. K. Fotinos-Hoyer · Jan 22, 2012

bearilou said:
I'd like it if I could ever get my critical reading eye to turn on. I start off reading, trying to analyze but usually getting so caught up in the story I forget and by the end, I've been swept along and not paying attention to those things I had set out to analyze. By the time I close the book I'll remember 'well nuts, I was supposed to be reading that with a critical eye'.

Whenever I'm supposed to be reading something for a CP or Beta Partner and I find myself caught up in the story and just reading, I let myself finish the chapter and then go back and read it again critically. I actually love it when this happens because it means the story is really there, and my work is just about the fine-tuning and making sure that nothing gets in the way of the great story!

RobJ · Jan 22, 2012

Lifelongdagger said:
So here's the thing. Are we, as writers, too hard on each other? Are we seeking a perfection in our writing, adhering to a set of writerly rules, the reader simply doesn't care about. Do we pull ourselves - and each other - to pieces needlessly, when all the reader wants is a good story?

Sounds a lot like this thread:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229573

scarletpeaches · Jan 22, 2012

My philosophy is: now that you know better, do better.

Some folks may say as writers, we're not 'ordinary' readers, whatever that means. Maybe we're not -- we are, or should be, more experienced and more demanding.

It means we spot errors more easily, but it also means our standards are higher, and we should make no apologies for that.

jjdebenedictis · Jan 22, 2012

I've totally noticed this effect. My absolute favourite book when I was a teenager--the one I lurved like no other--is something I can't read anymore because of the adjective/adverb abuse in it.

I try to keep this effect in mind when I'm critiquing (or getting critiques)--that yes, we writers tend to nit-pick things to death. Because a lot of the errors we notice are things the average reader won't, I will point out issues I see--but I'll also mention it if I think it's the sort of detail that can be safely ignored.

It's good to be a borderline-perfectionist, if you're a writer. It's good to care about detail. But it's also harmful to care about the details to the detriment of the story's overall impact.

Like Bearilou, I still get swept away by good books. But the ones that aren't well-written? I just put them down again. So the only harm this effect has done to me is it has made me a choosier reader.

ChaosTitan · Jan 22, 2012

scarletpeaches said:
My philosophy is: now that you know better, do better.

Some folks may say as writers, we're not 'ordinary' readers, whatever that means. Maybe we're not -- we are, or should be, more experienced and more demanding.

It means we spot errors more easily, but it also means our standards are higher, and we should make no apologies for that.

I can agree with this.

However, when I'm reading for enjoyment and relaxation, I'm still able to let that internal editor (inner author, or whatever you want to call it) go for a while and just enjoy the book. Do errors still jump out at me? Sure. But I don't read for fun with an open critical eye, and I'll excuse minor flaws in the pursuit of a good story.

Layla Nahar · Jan 22, 2012

I get a bit cross with myself when I find myself saying 'Aha - here's the (blah blah blah)' when I'm reading a book for the first time. However, I also have had the problem of wanting to read as a writer on a subsequent reading, and with some books I still get carried away by the story. Now that's a good book! (I also have the ability to read a book many many times if I really like it. You get more money's worth that way)

LN

HapiSofi · Jan 22, 2012

It's good to read with a critical eye, even if it ruins books you loved back when you were a happy normal reader. When you write, your audience may not be conscious of every fidget and fine point, but many of those readers will still be reacting to them, whether they realize it or not.

There is an exception to this. Some writers, like Stephenie Meyer or Dan Brown, succeed on the basis of their content. If you naturally write like that and can make it work, more power to you. But if you have a choice, be aware that clean, logical, user-friendly prose is likelier to be said to have "held up well" twenty or thirty years after it first saw publication.

pandaponies · Jan 22, 2012

ChaosTitan said:
Do errors still jump out at me? Sure. But I don't read for fun with an open critical eye, and I'll excuse minor flaws in the pursuit of a good story.

This! I might think "Hmm, there sure are a bunch of said-bookisms in this novel," but then, "Oh well! It's still great; can't put it down!"

scarletpeaches · Jan 22, 2012

If you've been trained, as a writer or voracious reader or both, to see mistakes, you can't not see them. So I don't believe we're picky; we're observant.

bearilou · Jan 22, 2012

pandaponies said:
This! I might think "Hmm, there sure are a bunch of said-bookisms in this novel," but then, "Oh well! It's still great; can't put it down!"

This happened recently to me. One of the characters sneering was perilously closed to becoming a drinking game. He sneered, his trademark sneer, his patent sneer, his ever-present sneer...

But I loved the story, the characters.. and I even loved the sneering character.

gothicangel · Jan 22, 2012

scarletpeaches said:
My philosophy is: now that you know better, do better.

Some folks may say as writers, we're not 'ordinary' readers, whatever that means. Maybe we're not -- we are, or should be, more experienced and more demanding.

It means we spot errors more easily, but it also means our standards are higher, and we should make no apologies for that.

This. It happened to me today actually. I bought a recently released book, because I thought crap, this is just like mine!
You know what? Mine is much better [

] and it's made me step back and analyse my WIP more closely.

And if you think writers analyse too deeply, you want to sit in on a book-club ran by a university Lit depertment.

KSandoval · Jan 22, 2012

I find that I can't help but read critically the first time through. But if I sit down with the same book a second time, I can just enjoy it, because the problems I have with it have already been acknowledge. My mind lets them go.

Every once in awhile I'll read something so good I don't pick it apart. I'm not sure if it's because the story is that compelling or there aren't any errors to pick at. I certainly don't notice any errors.

Are we harder on each other than a casual reader would be? Sure. But it's a good thing to demand excellence of ourselves and our peers. And, if the general quality of writing in the world increases as a result, maybe we'll see readers becoming a bit more particular as well. I think that'd be a good thing.

PrincessofPersia · Jan 22, 2012

I only read critically if I choose to, and most of the time I do not. I read for pleasure, which doesn't involve analysing everything in a book. Sometimes, however, a book will be so poorly written that I can't help myself. I can only think of about four examples though.

scarletpeaches · Jan 22, 2012

I read for pleasure too, and I find no pleasure in said-bookisms, telling-not-showing and "As you know, Bob," dialogue.

It's not a choice between reading for pleasure and reading with your hyper-critical inner editor switched on. Some people find no pleasure in books which are chock-full of errors and things we, as writers, are warned against. I'm one of them.

I find my reading pleasure in books that know how to follow the rules, or which break them from a position of power.

Chrissy · Jan 22, 2012

Yeah, I don't think we're ever totally free from the edit and analysis. But that just means we're pickier, like someone else mentioned. That's not a bad thing.

I'm thankful for the "Read Sample" option on my Nook. That way, I can get a sense of whether the book is decently written. If my editor hasn't chilled out by the time I finish the sample pages, I don't buy it.

I use the second read of a good book to try to pinpoint where and how the author has been successful. If something makes me laugh, cry, tense in anticipation or fear, etc.. then I re-read for structure and flow and other reasons why it worked.

I don't buy the meh books. Let alone analyze them. Life is too short.

kuwisdelu · Jan 22, 2012

Chrissy said:
I don't buy the meh books. Let alone analyze them. Life is too short.

That one. I was going to say that I think I pretty much still read "as a reader," but then I realized I'm only under that impression because if any of that kind of stuff starts to bother me, I stop reading. I can put up with that kind of stuff in movies, but a book is too much of a time investment for me to bother reading something less than amazing.

Jamesaritchie · Jan 22, 2012

I think reading only as a writer is a phase for most. For me, a book can either make me forget I'm a writer, or it isn't worth reading, anyway.

So my first read is purely for pleasure. If the book is really good, so good it makes me forget I'm even reading a book, then I read it a second time. And often a third, a fourth, and a fifth. Somewhere along the way, I get the technical analysis.

Though I gave up caring about technical analysis a long time ago. I dissected and analyzed more books in college, and in the decade after, than anyone should. I finally realized that reading is reading, writing is writing, and I pick up more of what I need by reading than by dissecting and analyzing.

Anyway, it's natural to notice the bad things about writing, story, characters, etc., but I think a good book still transcends the way it's written. Reading for pleasure is as easy now as it ever was, it's just that I can't always read the same books I did years ago. I need better books by better storytellers. And they are out there.

Orchestra · Jan 22, 2012

It's a matter of reader competence. I know some highly competent readers (high school teachers, professors, book club hosts) who are just as critical of plot holes, bad characterization and purple prose as any of the writers I know. Also, people who are competent readers are also more likely to become writers themselves.

gothicangel · Jan 22, 2012

Chrissy said:
I don't buy the meh books. Let alone analyze them. Life is too short.

There is a good argument for reading 'bad' books. I seem to remember Stephen King advocating doing this in On Writing.

PrincessofPersia · Jan 22, 2012

scarletpeaches said:
I read for pleasure too, and I find no pleasure in said-bookisms, telling-not-showing and "As you know, Bob," dialogue.

It's not a choice between reading for pleasure and reading with your hyper-critical inner editor switched on. Some people find no pleasure in books which are chock-full of errors and things we, as writers, are warned against. I'm one of them.

I find my reading pleasure in books that know how to follow the rules, or which break them from a position of power.

You're assuming that reading for pleasure is the same as not having standards. Reading without your writer's glasses on doesn't preclude wanting a good story with good dialogue and good writing. In the OP, analysing and critiquing the story are mentioned as his definition of reading like a writer. It is possible to read something without consciously analysing or critiquing it while still expecting it to live up to your expectations.

Your premise that a person who does not analyse as he reads must take pleasure in reading books "chock-full of errors and things we, as writers, are warned against" is faulty and borderline insulting.

Reading as a Writer/Reading as a Reader

Certified Non-Genius

Chasing Dreams

DenturePunk writer

Writing Anarchist

Chasing Dreams

is watching you via her avatar

Around

Seashell Seller

Hagiographically Advantaged

in ur boardz, correctin ur grammar

DenturePunk writer

Toughen up.

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Revolutionize the World

practical experience, GTFO

Toughen up.