Is writing a young person's game? [Archive] - Absolute Write Water Cooler

wordmonkey

11-14-2006, 09:04 PM

KTC

11-14-2006, 09:18 PM

I'm not going to dignify this with an answer.

Zolah

11-14-2006, 09:26 PM

Simon Woodhouse

11-14-2006, 09:29 PM

I hope not.

I've been writing for five years (I'm now in my late thirties). If those same five years had happened when I was in my twenties, I'm pretty sure my style of writing wouldn't be the same as it is now. This might sound a bit lightweight, but now feels like the right time to be doing it.

Writing isn't as 'age-ist' as either the music or movie industry because it's not such a visual medium. Besides the super-famous, most authors seem to remain anonymous (in so much as no one knows what they look like). That's fine with me, because I'm not much of a looker.

CaroGirl

11-14-2006, 09:30 PM

Egads, I hope writing's not just for the young, or I'm SOL.

Mary Lawson published her first novel later in life. I cling to the faint hope that I can too.

RG570

11-14-2006, 10:21 PM

I wish it were a young person's game. But I've always thought older people had the advantage with writing.

I don't know squat about anything. I haven't been anywhere or done anything, and I imagine my writing would be better if I had.

Maybe you're thinking of the pop music world. That has nothing to do with art, or the ability to create. It's all about looks and image. I doubt that applies to authors.

PenelopePitstop

11-14-2006, 10:33 PM

If you are very good at something... nuff said!

Shadow_Ferret

11-14-2006, 10:35 PM

Well, I forgot where I heard it, but it was many years ago. They were pointing out the ratio of success among young writers versus old writers.

Another thing that brought this thought to light was, I was reading Stephen King's On Writing and there's a passage there (I don't have the book with me, so please bare with me) where he said something to the effect that he felt (while he was writing Carrie) that if he didn't succeed soon he didn't want to become this 50-year-old man who's still struggling.

Maybe one of the King afficianados can come up with the exact quote.

CaroGirl

11-14-2006, 10:37 PM

... please bare with me...
Dirty old man.

Thankfully, although I might be struggling as a writer, I have managed to be successful in a bunch of other things (family and career, most notably). I think it would suck if you put all your eggs in one writerly basket and couldn't make it for decades.

peevy

11-14-2006, 10:39 PM

It's funny--some people bash younger writers for relying solely on good marketing, and some people worry that older writers don't have it in them. I guess that means all of us are doomed.

But just to add to the panic, I have read that agents are reluctant to take on really old writers because they can't count on a decades-long writing career like you might be able to with a younger writer.

Still, if the work is good, does it matter? Age may be a factor, but I don't think it's a huge one.

Bubastes

11-14-2006, 10:40 PM

Annie Proulx started writing fiction in her fifties.

Melanie Nilles

11-14-2006, 10:43 PM

On some level I always knew I was a storyteller, but I think I needed some years and mileage before I could actually do anything with that.

I wouldn't say I'm over the hill (still sub 40), but I don't think I had the maturity to do what I do now, before. I could tell a story, but I don't think I had the skill to weave in an underpinning theme with any degree of sophistication.

And for me, that's what's lacking in some young writers' work. That depth.

Not to say that it doesn't happen, but I like a little extra meat on the bones on my fiction and this is usually what's missing.
I culdn't agree more. If you want an example, take Eragon, written by a fifteen year old, at least at that time. Successful book (movie comes out next month) but there's an immaturity in the writing and a lack of depth that books by adults have. It's almost too simple--maybe that's why the second book, Eldest, is such a bore--he didn't have enough to keep it interesting so he put in a bunch of filler (IMHO, at least half of that one could be cut out and the pace would greatly improve). Just my opinion on it. I didn't dislike the story, but sometimes the writing style gets in the way of suspending my disbelief. It's the same problem you'll find with a lot of young writers. They just don't have the experiences to draw upon to add the depth they lack in characters and plot. In that respect, young writers write best for young readers. These are just my stated opinions, not facts.

I always knew I wanted to write, but even ten years ago I was just starting to see the world in a broader context while finishing college. Now, I find that my stories have a depth in them, whether overt or stated, and my characters are more believable, because I have had years of life experience and education behind me. I've looked back on what I wrote ten or more years ago and cringed. Needless to say that I've stopped doing that.

Melanie

stormie

11-14-2006, 10:46 PM

A young author (repped by a top agent) posted something similar on her blog awhile ago. She's twenty and stated something to the effect of, only us young people could write YA (young adult). Older people just don't get it. That part of her blog was taken down soon after, by her.

Maybe Judy Blume contacted her??:D

TrainofThought

11-14-2006, 10:48 PM

Are there any first-time writers out there who became successful as they entered their second half century of existence? There was an article in the NYT yesterday regarding Anne Porter. She has her poetry published and she is 95 years old. Another poet by the name of Donald Hall said, “Poems are made for others to read but made out of silence and solitude, and perhaps there is more silence and solitude in the world of the old.” I love this comment. Not saying that you’re old, I’m just pointing this out.

You can write about anything you want. What you don't know, you can look up. :D

Shadow_Ferret

11-14-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow_Ferret
... please bare with me...

Dirty old man.

Ha! Originally I had "bear," but I kept looking at it going, no, that's the animal. So I knew either way someone would call me on it.

sfecphory

11-14-2006, 10:59 PM

Every now and then the news vomits up "facts" like these for us to chew on.

Most people in the entertainment industry are young. Okay. How many of those young writers/producers are in full control of their work, how many of them make the final call on suggested changes, and how many of them own what they produce? This information is left out. Then, months later, the news will show us the exact opposite information: power players in Hollywood (or publishing) are the same people as before: Tom Cruise, Stephen King, Spielberg, etc. Old and getting older.

I wouldn't worry about author's ages; worry about your character's dilemma and development.

Richard Armour

11-15-2006, 12:06 AM

Great question! Love some of the responses!!!
:roll:
I suppose it depends on so many levels.
I began writing when I was 11 years old, but I was rubbish back then. Not much better now, but I finished my first book when I was 36 so not exactly young but still a way off 50.

To be honest; should age make any difference?? I'm not convinced. I look at someone like Clive Cussler and James Patterson. 2 very prolific and mega successful authors and they are both over 50.

Ignore your age; let the pen or finger upon keyboard flow and enjoy the whole process.

Life is too short not to seize it with both hands.

GPatten

11-15-2006, 12:35 AM

Luis L’Amour 1908-1988
Margerie Kinman Rawling 1896-1953
Raymond Chandler wrote his first screenplay at 56. He didn't even publish his first novel until he was 51. For the record, he wrote the original screenplays for 'Double Indemnity' and 'Strangers On A Train.'

In 1939, after F. Scott Fitzgerald's career as a novelist had faltered, he needed money fast. He went to Hollywood and found work as a screenwriter. He was 43 years old. William Faulkner wrote his first screenplay at 48.

William Goldman is pushing 70; David Mamet is 53;

Marc Norman, are no spring chickens. Norman is closer to 60 than 50

Tom Stoppard turns 64 this year.

How old is Stephen King and Tess Gerritsen?

The Ageism factor is pretty easy to understand. Somehow, older (and presumably wiser) isn't necessarily better or smarter. In Hollywood think, a 23-year-old will write a more commercially viable script than a 43-year-old or 53-year-old. They might be right, if the plot has to do with high school or college kids ('American Pie,' 'Road Trip' or any Freddy Prinze Jr. movie). But when it comes to stories with depth and weight, I think it's fair to say that age and life experience will supercede youth and inexperience.

http://www.writersstore.com/article.php?articles_id=5

jpserra

11-15-2006, 12:39 AM

I was born in 51, but I'll let you know when I'm done being 15.

John Serra

Celia Cyanide

11-15-2006, 12:42 AM

I like to think I'd be doing a little bit better if that were the case.

scribbler1382

11-15-2006, 12:49 AM

Not quite 50, but there was one author that comes to mind. He published his first novel when he was 44. For the next 30 years, he constantly appeared on the bestseller lists all around the world. He had 29 novels published in 32 languages, selling over 210,000,000 copies worldwide. Ten motion pictures have been made based on his works. He died in 2001, but no self-respecting novelist would let a little thing like death stop them...he's published 11 books since his death, and shows no sign of slowing down.

His name was Robert Ludlum. Maybe you heard of him? :)

Shadow_Ferret

11-15-2006, 12:53 AM

Thanks scribbler. :)

John61480

11-15-2006, 01:25 AM

About young writers with experience, I think some is valid and other opinions aren't. Take for example from wikipediea:

Hinton first began writing in her junior year at Will Rogers High School in Tulsa. She began The Outsiders because of the two divided groups in her high school, the Greasers and the Socs. After her father died of a cancerous brain tumor, she withdrew and found solace in writing. She also lost her mother during her childhood. In that time period she also witnessed the cold-blooded beating of her friend by two other high school students. Hinton used her initials when publishing the book so that male readers would not assume the novel was written primarily for females.

The Outsiders was published when she was 19 years old. A year later a short story version of Rumble Fish was published.

I'm jealous.

I'm also worried that I myself will try and get published for many long years to come, and give up in futility. My suicide of the written words as a peaking middle aged man will by being e-pub'd or self-pub'd. There, I said it (as a 26 year old).

Danger Jane

11-15-2006, 01:31 AM

I culdn't agree more. If you want an example, take Eragon, written by a fifteen year old, at least at that time. Successful book (movie comes out next month) but there's an immaturity in the writing and a lack of depth that books by adults have. It's almost too simple--maybe that's why the second book, Eldest, is such a bore--he didn't have enough to keep it interesting so he put in a bunch of filler (IMHO, at least half of that one could be cut out and the pace would greatly improve). Just my opinion on it. I didn't dislike the story, but sometimes the writing style gets in the way of suspending my disbelief. It's the same problem you'll find with a lot of young writers. They just don't have the experiences to draw upon to add the depth they lack in characters and plot. In that respect, young writers write best for young readers. These are just my stated opinions, not facts.

For what it's worth, I read Eragon when it came out, so I must've been around 13 or 14, and I thought it was slow-paced, shallow, and boring.

PerditaDrury

11-15-2006, 01:35 AM

Oooh, what an interesting question!

In terms of novels: No. Absolutely not. The quality of writing is what's important.

In terms of screenwriting: Yes. Absolutely. The quality of writing doesn't matter if you're too old.

I'm the VP of Story Development of a mid-sized Prodco and I will not even look at a script that comes from a new writer who's over 30.

An established writer over 30? Yes. And I will invite that person to lunch to talk about the old days and trends. These are the folks I personally prefer to work with.

But there is no room for "new screenwriters" who have not paid their dues in the industry. Us old folks and power brokers made it to where we are by working as interns, working in the mailroom, volunteering on features, working up, up, up the ladder until we got somewhere. We resent those who knock, knock, knock on the door, screenplay in hand, and expect us to be impressed.

And for those wannbe screenwriters who say they've been writing for a decade but just haven't made it yet, we honestly wonder what's wrong with them and believe, WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, that they're just not good enough.

Every successful screenwriter, with very few exceptions, started young and achieved success or came from another medium where he/she was a success.

A 40-year-old unproduced intern in the mailroom is to be pitied not applauded.

This doesn't apply to writer/directors, by the way: those who can pull together the cash to make their own films. At least they're not crying "read my script"; they've got the wherewithal to say "watch my movie".

That's this business and that's the way it is. There are exceptions but that's like saying you can win the lottery because, look, Joe Blow from Phoenix won the lottery. There might also be an established novelist who takes a crack at adapting his/her own work and does a great job. Good for them: they paid their dues in another venue but they paid in full.

That's the take in my business.

As for novelists, I personally prefer to read books by older writers because they have lived, are usually wiser, reflective, and interesting. Some terrific novelists never had the chance to write before retiring. Some have labored for years, even decades, before someone recognized what they had.

So...
Screenwriting is a young person's game...

Novelists get better with age.

John61480

11-15-2006, 01:45 AM

Man...that's harsh. I don't think I'd like to screenwrite for television (especially if the pay is under $30,000).

Vomaxx

11-15-2006, 01:49 AM

Well, considering how long it takes to find an agent, find a publisher, go through editing, etc., it might be a good idea to start in your twenties in the hope that the process could be completed before you are moribund.

PerditaDrury

11-15-2006, 01:52 AM

Man...that's harsh. I don't think I'd like to screenwrite for television (especially if the pay is under $30,000).

Where did you get that figure?

Do you mean $30,000 per month? That's about right for the 8 months in a production schedule.

Is reality harsh?

Probably, but it's better to know the truth than to labor after a misconception.

scribbler1382

11-15-2006, 02:43 AM

It's probably true, and you can see the "wonderful" results at the box office every year.:e2smack:

PerditaDrury

11-15-2006, 02:53 AM

It's probably true, and you can see the "wonderful" results at the box office every year.:e2smack:

Yeah, you're right. Look at all those stupid films out there from those who've paid their dues: "The Departed"; "The Illusionist", etc. and all those awful independents that came out of Sundance.

Too bad we can't open up the doors and let "new" writers fix it for us.

scribbler1382

11-15-2006, 03:12 AM

I don't expect it will ever change, but quoting a handful of films when over 1,000 films were produced last year (almost 4,600 worldwide) seems a bad way to convince anyone. :)

Seriously, though, it's just the idea that the face behind the work, rather than the work, is a deciding factor in what gets made that is sticking in my craw. Again, I know it won't change, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it.

spacejock2

11-15-2006, 05:28 AM

It can take 10-15 years to find a legit publisher, and by the time it happens writers are likely shopping their third, fourth or fifth novel.

Given that stat, what do you think?

Dave.C.Robinson

11-15-2006, 05:54 AM

Writers succeed regardless of their age-- manuscripts don't wrinkle as the writer ages. Look at Jack Williamson-- he started publishing in 1928 and won a Hugo and Nebula in 2001. His last novel was published in 2005.

Helen Hoover Santmyer was how old when she wrote ...And ladies of the club?

It's not important with books.

johnzakour

11-15-2006, 06:06 AM

I'm a better writer now than I was when I was younger and I plan to keep getting better with age.

When I was younger I wasn't ready to be a writer (mainly because word processors weren't around yet.)

ORION

11-15-2006, 06:23 AM

I really hate this thread.
I go to conferences and workshops and there are a huge number of "older" writers and presenting authors.
I myself did not get an agent until I was over 50.
I think this is entirely meaningless and just another excuse.
My agent never asked how old I was - she just was interested that I had more than one manuscript to offer.
JMHO

Scrawler

11-15-2006, 07:58 AM

Helen Hooven Santmyer took a few years (50) to write "And the Ladies of the Club", published when she was 88 years old.

Scrawler

11-15-2006, 08:07 AM

I'm the VP of Story Development of a mid-sized Prodco and I will not even look at a script that comes from a new writer who's over 30.
And how do you know the age of a new writer? Do you have your people call his/her people and ask their date of birth before looking at the script?
:roll:

Solange Blue

11-15-2006, 09:17 AM

And how do you know the age of a new writer? Do you have your people call his/her people and ask their date of birth before looking at the script?
:roll:

In the film business, ideas are pitched before scripts are ever read. Writers come in, pitch their ideas... usually more than one. If we can "package" an idea with an interested director and a couple of name actors, we usually can get a deal.

Writers must live locally as they need to come to a lot of meetings. They need to be in a lot of face to face situations. A writer works with a prodco for at least a year prior to production.

Spec scripts, or those written by writers in hopes of landing work, are repped by agents or managers as established prodcos won't read unsolicted work, only work that's repped by people known to them. If a prodco likes the script, they find out about the writer: is he/she articulate and able to handle his/her own in meetings. Is he/she cooperative and able to accept notes. Can he/she work fast and make changes overnight if need be. How do they find this out? With face-to-face meetings. Age becomes immediately apparent.

A writer, in this respect, is akin to a spokesmodel and we take it very seriously. They can't be trouble... we will side with the director and fire the writer in a heartbeat.

Young, hip, energetic, enthusiastic, witty... all are good things for a writer to be. We want them to represent us in the best way possible.

There is NO CORRELATION between writing for the screen and writing novels. You can be a fat slob and write at home in dirty underwear and still be the best damn novelist in the world. Unless you're established in the screenworld, that's not possible.

I'm older myself BUT I have several thousand credits to my name. If I were just starting out, even with my pretty formidable abilities, I would never get a gig.

Think about it: let's say you're a great novelist but you die before you publish. Someone finds your novel in a trunk in the attic and, provided they understand what they've found, you will probably be published posthumously. Let's say you're a terrific screenwriter but you die before you are discovered. That's it: your stuff goes into a dumpster unless someone tries to pass it off as their own.

Why? Screenwriting is a business... it's just one element in an artist's medium. What's the medium? Film. Who's the artist? The director.

It's not a writer's medium in the way a novel is.

And, in all honesty, in all my years in the business, I have only seen maybe a handful of scripts that were even close to being good by someone outside the industry. All the rest were pretty terrible... and a good portion of them came from frustrated novelists who thought writing a film would be easy. It's not... it's a very specific craft.

PS
As for what I do: I work at the same company as "Perdita Drury" and I write all the adaptations on purchased material -- novels and short stories. I like novelists and fiction writers but they seldom see the that films must be condensed, fast-paced and rely on dialogue.

GPatten

11-15-2006, 01:32 PM

You can be a fat slob and write at home in dirty underwear and still be the best damn novelist in the world. Unless you're established in the screenworld, that's not possible.

:ROFL:

Though that may be true, it’s not accurate.

My under shorts are clean and I wear shorts over my under shorts. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/pattengr/OldSeaCaptain.jpg

Thank you for a very interesting post, Solange Blue. I’m not interested in writing screen plays and I know nothing about writing them, I’ve always wondered how they evolve to be movies and how a movie is written from a novel.

Thank you.

JustinThorne

11-15-2006, 01:45 PM

Is writing a young person's game?

Yes it is... so everyone over 40, please put down your pens or close your laptops.

Mwoah ha ha haaaaaaa - that should clear the slushpiles!

SJAB

11-15-2006, 02:57 PM

Is writing a young person's game?

Yes it is... so everyone over 40, please put down your pens or close your laptops.

Mwoah ha ha haaaaaaa - that should clear the slushpiles!

You mean under 40 don't you????:tongue

In answer to the question; no.

From a personal point I always wanted to write, but didn't feel I was ready too until I hit my mid to late 40's. Didn't know I could, but I tired. Had to re-learn old skills and learn new ones. Now I am tottering towards being published. When you are young you feel the world should move at at faster pace, hence you expect the publishing industry to do so. When you are old you know the world works at the pace of a snail with a hernia, hence any reply under a couple of months from a publisher/agent takes you by surprise.;)

Doctor Shifty

11-15-2006, 03:47 PM

William Golding (probably my favourite author) was born 1911, his first novel was published 1954 when he was 43, and he died in 1993, working on a novel that was published posthumously. That's a 40 year spread of competence. The first half of his life didn't seem to produce much, but the creativity of the second half is astounding.

He got the Booker Prize at age 69 and Nobel Prize for Literature age 72.

spacejock2

11-15-2006, 04:17 PM

PS
As for what I do: I work at the same company as "Perdita Drury" and I write all the adaptations on purchased material -- novels and short stories. I like novelists and fiction writers but they seldom see the that films must be condensed, fast-paced and rely on dialogue.

My bachelor's degree was in creative writing and 16mm filmmaking, but I never went near the industry once I graduated. Partly because I got hooked on computers around that time, and partly because there WAS no industry in Western Australia.

Much easier to write novels - you can live anywhere, work at your own pace and there are no meetings.

Cheers
Simon

FergieC

11-15-2006, 04:22 PM

I think you have more energy in your 20s, maybe. I'm not sure though - I did. I used to be able to write all hours in my 20s and churn out vast amounts of stuff, whereas now (in my early 30s) I kind of like my sleep a bit more.

That said, what I do write now is far better. So I'm glad I started in my 20s because I had the energy to learn writing while also having a life, I suppose. These days, something always has to give - either work, or sleep, or social life, or writing. But most people don't really have anything sensible to say in their 20s - you need a bit of life experience to write well, imo, which is why most writers seem to get better with age. I'd far rather read a novel by somene in their 40s or 50s or older, than by a 20 year old.

aghast

11-15-2006, 04:33 PM

some creative fields like music, acting and maybe even screenwriting or journalism do favor youth (at least to start out) but i think in the field of general writing fiction or nonfiction and even art age is not a matter because the artists are 'invisible' and they dont have to be a year long bus tour that taxes their stamina and its probably a field where age actually adds to the creativity - knowledge, wisdom, experiences and skills favors maturity than youth

Dave.C.Robinson

11-15-2006, 05:15 PM

I'm another who read this and is glad that I'm not looking at screenwriting. With prose at least one's judged on the quality of their work.

Saundra Julian

11-15-2006, 06:30 PM

Define "young."

britwrit

11-15-2006, 06:45 PM

Of course, younger writers also have an advantage in that they usually have a lot of free time in which to write. Their overhead is a lot lower (no family or mortgage), and they're happy to work at lousy jobs and live in tiny little apartments. Compared to some older guy who writes on the weekends and at night, it's a big advantage.

Prawn

11-15-2006, 07:42 PM

Kate Thornton

11-15-2006, 07:46 PM

It is interesting to think all the stuff I saw in the movie, "The Player" might be true. In the movie, the writer got screwed, then killed. (The screenwriter, Michael Tolkin, also wrote the novel on which the screenplay was based. He was born in 1950.)

The world of screenwriting may be for the young, and I have been in places where looks and enthusiasm were enough. It was fun, but I am further along now, and interested in other things. It seems a shame that a whole section of creative endeavor would be closed to older participants who may be able to produce a product but cannot participate satisfactorily in the meeting-and-looks department.

In some artistic endeavors (classical music, ballet, opera) one must start young because of the amount of formative time it takes to become seriously proficient. In other arts (painting, writing) age and experience can be a powerful factor in artistic expression and performance of craft.

It is too bad that the Hollywood screenwriting model is skewed to exclude the work in favor of the personality, but a look at the level of entertainment available today in films and television should give us a clue. I still see independent and foreign films which are truly breathtaking, and the screenplays are by a variety of individuals of all ages and backgrounds.

Merchant-Ivory - the great production company whose three main participants were producer Ismail Merchant, director James Ivory and the screenwriter, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, - brought some of the most riveting and comic masterpieces to the screen - Shakespeare Wallah, A Room With a View, Howard's End. Ruth Prawer Jhabvala was born in 1927. Her novel, Heat and Dust, won the Booker Prize in 1975. Two of her screenplays won Academy Awards for best adapted screenplay.

I know the Merchant-Ivory model is not the Hollywood model. And I think that's too bad. But it does illustrate that the Hollywood model is not the only one.

While all writers need experiences to write from, some are born with such talent that they transcend the need for extensive experience and make fine young writers. But many writers need the experiences of life - and the honing of the craft of writing - to become good and even great writers. Age should never be a discriminator in good writing.

IrishScribbler

11-16-2006, 12:24 AM

Are there any first-time writers out there who became successful as they entered their second half century of existence?

Jasper Fforde (http://www.jasperfforde.com/bio.html) (my favorite author) worked in Hollywood for years until he decided to start writing.

IrishScribbler

11-16-2006, 12:44 AM

Big :Hug2: for all of us so-called mature writers.

Definitely!

Bubastes

11-16-2006, 12:44 AM

Big :Hug2: for all of us so-called mature writers.

Hugs back to you! I loved your post. I feel sorry for people who have lost their imaginations. They miss out on so much joy.

I'm off to inhale my crayons. The best part of being a grown-up kid: you can buy the huge 96 pack of Crayolas yourself!

Edit: and you don't need to share them either. :D

stormie

11-16-2006, 04:35 AM

Hugs back to you! I loved your post. I feel sorry for people who have lost their imaginations. They miss out on so much joy.
That's why I'm a writer. Got to keep that imagination sharp!

I'm off to inhale my crayons. The best part of being a grown-up kid: you can buy the huge 96 pack of Crayolas yourself!
Edit: and you don't need to share them either. :D
On my "to do" list for tomorrow: But that 96 box of Crayolas.

SeanDSchaffer

11-16-2006, 07:23 PM

Most of the answers to this question agree that there is no "ageism" in publishing. Unfortunately, the record says otherwise. I wish it were not so; but it is undoubtedly an advantage in the fiction markets of the UK and US to be young and preferably attractive - the more so the better.

....Snipped.

Forgive me for asking, but could you perhaps give us some sources for this information? That way anyone here could verify your claims, and we could read for ourselves what the experts have to say.

engmajor2005

11-16-2006, 07:30 PM

There is a writer who just nailed a sweet contract, and he's in his fifties. His day job was doing voice-over work, and he was an audiobook reader. He had ten completed novels under his belt, and convinced the publisher to let him read one. Stephen King picked it up at the local library, loved it, pulled some strings and got the man a writing contract.

I can't remember the name of the author, sorry, but one thing's for certain. He doesn't have to worry about the short career; he's got ten books done already.

I'm "only" 24, and I'm just starting to pick up steam as a writer. I like to think it has less to do with my age than my ability.

FergieC

11-16-2006, 08:08 PM

I wish it were not so; but it is undoubtedly an advantage in the fiction markets of the UK and US to be young and preferably attractive - the more so the better.

It would be an advantage if you also happened to have written a brilliant book and be talented. But there are so many celebrities out there these days that if a publisher only wants youth and good looks, they're more likely to pick someone who already has a presence, and can be sold on the back of that. So if you're a totally unknown 21 year old beauty queen who's written a piss-poor novel, I don't think you'd be at any kind of advantage.

Most novelists don't tend to be seen much anyway. You do get the occasional person being heavily promoted on the back of youth and beauty, but it's rare. The one that springs to mind if Kaavya Viswanathan - that good looking 18 year old who was heavily promoted and turned out to have plagered the book. If publishers have any sense, they won't be rushing to duplicate that.

Shadow_Ferret

11-16-2006, 10:03 PM

The other thing, imagination: Most of the people my own age or above I've met, it seems like the imagination has been sucked right out of them. They no longer look up at the world and wonder; they no longer marvel over a sunset; they don't use crayons and color pretty pictures any more. How sad for them, and how great for us that we haven't lost that wonderful quality.

Big :Hug2: for all of us so-called mature writers.

My imagination was "different" when I was younger. I don't know how else to explain that. I was full of millions of ideas but had no clue what to do with them. I wrote "snippets" of stories. Not full novels or even short stories, just scenes. I had lots and lots of unconnected, unrelated scenes going on in my head. My brain was awash in these things. It was crowded in there and noisy.

I could look at say, a tree, and imagine all sorts of events around just that tree. Or a plane flying overhead would sprout several disjointed scenes.

Now I guess I still have that to a degree, but it's been "tamed." I've learned to not jump when a scene calls. I let it sit and stew for a while. I've learned how to focus on just one idea at a time and make the most of it.

The longest thing I wrote when I was in my teens and early 20s was probably about 2500 words at the most.

Now I'm on my second novel. The first clocked in at almost 200,000 words. This one is going to come in right around 70,000.

So to use a food analogy, when I was younger I had all these "niblets" laying around, and now that I'm older I have a couple full-course meals.

aruna

11-17-2006, 12:07 AM

I am 55. I've been "writing" since I was 8; I wrote a few stories as a child but aftrer that mostly just thought up developments based on real life incidents.

Like many women, I started writing after I had children and was able to stay how and use my time how I wanted. I had my children late (the second when I was 40) and started writing when she began going to "Kindergarten" (the original Kindergarten in Germany, which starts at 3 - playschool.) My first novel got published when I was 48.

I don't fdeel at all that my imagination is rusty or in any way lagging. Internally, I am "younger" that I ever was. I am more flexible, more mature, calmer than when i was younger. I've seen things through. I have raised children, have lived with teenagers - one of them particularly wild. That means I've had to understand teenagers. That means I could write for them - if I wanted to. I've been young myself, so I know what youth means. The idea that only the young can write for the young is in my eyes rubbish!

On the other hand, I tend to be bored by books written by young people - even prize winning books such as White Teeth, which somehow lacked a certain depth.

If I had started writing in my 20's I can't imagine what I'd have written. Yes, I had imagination then as now, but I was too much caught up in life and all its shenanigans. Now, I can take a step back and observe better. There's no way on the world I'd rather be a young writer. I'm a far BETTER writer than if I were young, and that's what counts.

I also just found a new agent for my latest novel, written this year. My agent is in her 20's! And I'm in touch with another of her clients, a writer who has just turned 50. Her book is non-fiction, but certanly her age was no handicap.

badducky

11-17-2006, 12:13 AM

I don't recall my publisher asking for my age or my headshot...

nicegrrl

11-17-2006, 12:23 AM

This thread is as good as the "are men better writers" thread.

No, writing is for whoever has the passion. Age is no bar. Odd question.

Allie

11-17-2006, 12:53 AM

Wow... I'm now glad I'm not a screenwriter, and in my thirties...

veronie

11-17-2006, 02:10 AM

30 is young? Awesome.

Scarlett_156

11-17-2006, 02:15 AM

"and ladies of the club" is such a KILLER book. I bought a copy of it for my mom for Mother's Day. She read it.

engmajor2005

11-17-2006, 02:22 AM

As a young writer, I have to say that it's true all things get better with age but a young person can be a great writer. Life experience and self-realization go a long way in being a writer; so does imagination, curiosity, and a willingness to listen.

So long as somebody is willing to learn and understand life in general, then they can write. I know a few (scant few, true) but a few teenagers and young adults that are more cognizant of the world around them, mortality, ethics, and philosophy than people twice their age.

Writing has no age requirements either way.

angeebee

11-17-2006, 02:52 AM

I've always heard that most of the entertainment media, writing, music, art, etc. is a young persons field. Meaning, most creative stuff is done by people in their 20s and 30s and that its rare for older people to be successful.

Are there any first-time writers out there who became successful as they entered their second half century of existence?

I hope it's not a young person's game. I'm 57 and I take great comfort from the knowledge that when you hit 50 you know just a little more than you did at 20, 30, and 40.

Many bestselling novelists are in their 50s and beyond, simply because it takes a long time to get the life experience so you KNOW how people react to circumstances.

Yes, getting hired to write a TV show at 50 is unlikely, but who knows? If you write a spec script that's amazing, you'll get paid.

Some highly successful first novels are written by people in their 80s.

If you want to write, write. You don't need anyone's permission. Nor do you need a publisher; you can do it all yourself. And at age 50, you should know how. :-)

Cheers

Angela

johnzakour

11-17-2006, 03:03 AM

I don't think age is a big factor.

For me the biggest factor in becoming a fulltime writer was having a wife who has a real good job and would patiently stand by me.

Novelist in Paradise

11-17-2006, 03:08 AM

I wrote my first short story when I was six.

Then I pretty much did everything I could in order to not write although I did dabble here and there.

Around the age of 40, I realized I was most happy when unhappily writing.

Now at 50, I'm sorta starting to break through with a couple published novels (2004 & 2006, two more under contract).

A part of me regrets wasting my 30s, but another part realizes that it was best I wait and tool around the world a bit, explore for new surf on remote Indian Ocean islands.

Novelist in Paradise

11-17-2006, 03:09 AM

For me the biggest factor in becoming a fulltime writer was having a wife who has a real good job and would patiently stand by me.

Yes. Behind every well-fed writer is usually the primary bread winner.

Allie

11-17-2006, 03:17 AM

Yes. Behind every well-fed writer is usually the primary bread winner.

Amen to that... although I suppose writing in bankrupcy court might add a certain edge to the work.

Alan Yee

11-17-2006, 03:25 AM

Someone commented that young writers should write for young readers. I have never successfully managed to do that. I have friends my age, but I've always felt they were too immature or closed-minded about things. Books or short stories written for children or young adults have, in general, never really appealed to me, so I felt no reason to waste my writing for them.

For several years now I've been reading mostly non-YA books, which are inevitably intended for adults. The book I'm working on has content that is probably too mature for most young readers. I'm 85,000 words into it, and I'm still not done. In the meantime, I'm also writing dark fantasy/horror short stories to practice the craft and perhaps get some publication credits before I start shopping my dark novel around. By the time I'm out of high school, I'll probably be a much better writer and more experienced.

As Sean and I have noticed and talked about, I already have a bit of an advantage. I grew up with the Internet. Just a few years after I started writing, I found out about all the (good) resources, how to spot scams, basic mistakes and cliches, etc. Not quite like it was before the Internet, when you could practice making the same mistakes over and over again for many years without realizing it.

Hopefully, I won't be like Christopher Paolini, whose major claim to fame was he wrote the book when he was fifteen. (I am fifteen, and started my book when I was fourteen and a half.) I really hope my claim to fame is a good, well-written, entertaining book, not "writer who started his book when he was fourteen."

stormie

11-17-2006, 04:47 AM

Someone commented that young writers should write for young readers.
The comment you're referring to, I believe, is that I mentioned that a certain author who is 20, said on her blog that only young people who about her age should write young adult novels. She said that older people (anyone over 30) just don't "get it." She took the comment down shortly after. She has a top agent and top publisher, so she was probably asked to remove it. I'm glad, because no matter what age you are, if you can write for that age group, do it. I mean, maybe she should tell Judy Blume to stop writing for the YA market.

Doctor Shifty

11-17-2006, 11:13 AM

Out there in BookWorld (i.e. pre-Discworld) is a book called "The Carpet People". The dust jacket proudly says, "This book had two authors. One was 17, the other was 43. Both of them were Terry Pratchett."

Pratchett wrote it when he was 17, published it in a short run when he was in his early '20s, and when he got to be famous there were so many people wanting to know more about this book that was listed in his back catalogue but no bookshop could find it that he updated the book and re-published it.

It is interesting to read his comments on the task of re-writing something from his youth. His talent is not disputed, and we can easily imagine he was a talented 17 year old, but he is clear that the book needed work if it was going to stand public scrutiny.

My constant thought when I read the book was that I wanted to read the original, just to see how good it really was.

aruna

11-17-2006, 09:42 PM

Um yes... but what I get from that article is mostly this:
The best marketing of all though is the work itself, and it has to be good. You can't get away with looks alone, it all comes down to the writing in the end.

And, that it takes a writer 6 or 7 books to reach his/her peak. So it still comes back to older writers.

anodyne

11-18-2006, 12:10 AM

I don't think I could have written a very good book when I was 15 or 20. I am 40, and I think the extra 20 years of life have given me insight that I can put into my writing. Also, I personally just didn't have the discpline to do what it took to write a novel when I was 20, or even 30. If others can do it in their teens. more power to them!

I wrote my first novel when I was fourteen.

I promptly threw it away.

Looking back, all of my reasons for doing so were silly. I felt it was too derivative. Years later I discover, (after much toil at the university level) that all writing is.

As far as the original question. I sure hope so, at least for the initial writer. I want to have a long and prolific career. If the odds are in my favor I'm not going to complain.

PerditaDrury

11-18-2006, 01:05 AM

I am not quite sure what this means. Surely a very young screenwriter has not had time to "pay his dues" in any industry. He or she is too young. Or does this mean that anyone who takes to screenwriting later in life has not demonstrated enough dedication to the craft (by doing something else when they were in their 20s, for example?)

In any case, I invite people to imagine what the world of fiction and publishing would be like if decision makers showed the same attitude. People over 30 would find it impossible to get anyone to read their manuscripts, unless they had worked for years in a publishing firm, opening mail and copyediting books on cookery and pet care. Hmmm... that would mean saying good bye to about 95% of our best loved novelists, most of whom never worked in publishing before going into print. Such an attitude can only exist in an environment where writing itself is not highly valued. If it was, good work would be recognised and prized regardless of the author's years or experience.

Not all companies are like this. A close friend of mine just had his first script produced ($5 million budget) at the age of 47. True, he was a novelist, but this was not an adaptation, and he is far from a household name. This is a UK movie, but the deal was brokered in LA.

Are novelists interested in becoming part of a business? No. They just want to sell their manuscript, right? To see it in print.

Comparing screenwriters to novelists is apples and oranges. Speculation about "imagine a world where BLANK" can be fun but we're talking about WHAT IS. "Invite us to imagine"? Why not "invited us to imagine" that the moon is made of green cheese... what happens in the screen world DOES NOT effect novelists.

A 26 year-old, for example, can have paid a lot of dues. Path A: the kid went to one of the top film schools and graduated... dues paid right there: it's as hard to get into the top film schools, in the grad programs, as it is to get into med school. Countless hours of production, evaluation, film work. Six years from of schooling, too. That's dues paying.

Path B: the kid works as an intern, then a PA, then up the ladder. Learning by doing. The kid lives local and understands that that's a necessity.

I personally ONLY hire these two types: the film school wiz or the hard working-up-the-industry-by-their-bootstraps wunderkind.

Joe or Jane Blow from the hinterland with a dream... no thanks. The film world is a business, a business where a lot of money is invested, a very weird hybrid business, and those unfamiliar with the Industry because they haven't worked in it, aren't all that much help.

Just so you know, in the film world, writing is not the be all and end all. First comes then deal. Then the talent attached. Then the director. If someone has purchased the rights to a literary property, there are people who adapt it. A-listers, a handful. They all understand budget which is key. You write a script in the way a tailor makes a suit.

scribbler1382

11-18-2006, 02:33 AM

Comparing screenwriters to novelists is apples and oranges.

Absolutely correct. But to be fair, the following is what opened up all the screenwriting talk in the first place.

In terms of novels: No. Absolutely not. The quality of writing is what's important.

In terms of screenwriting: Yes. Absolutely. The quality of writing doesn't matter if you're too old.

Norman D Gutter

11-18-2006, 02:51 AM

Interesting discussions, with lots of anecdotes and few statistics. As one who is 54, having completed one (unpublished) novel, started another, and brainstormed about 20 more, I hope it is not true that most successful writing comes from the young. But, I suspect it is true. I'm currently reading a book of critical essays about John Steinbeck, who worked right up until his death at age 66, with most of his books continuing to do well commercially, but most of his critically acclaimed works being before he was 40. Either the critics treated him harsher after his early success, or he truly got worse after 40.

This, of course, is anecdotal. It would be interesting to see some true statistics about this.

Then again, how could you put into statistics the quality of the work? All you could do would be to determine age at first publication, and works published at different ages, or copies sold at different ages, and see how it all adds up. I suspect that commercial success could be easily maintained by a writer who goes downhill. Reputation and fan base would mitigate declining quality.

I suspect that the premise that most writers who have success do so before the age of 50 is true. Ambition, drive, and maximum brain ability provided by youth probably, on average, trump the experience of age.

NDG

Sassenach

11-18-2006, 03:02 AM

A 26 year-old, for example, can have paid a lot of dues. Path A: the kid went to one of the top film schools and graduated... dues paid right there: it's as hard to get into the top film schools, in the grad programs, as it is to get into med school. Countless hours of production, evaluation, film work. Six years from of schooling, too. That's dues paying.

A quick Google reveals that at UCLA the numbers are: Not. Even. Close. Much harder to get into med school.

http://www.apb.ucla.edu/sp2000/ngd.pdf

PerditaDrury

11-18-2006, 03:44 AM

A quick Google reveals that at UCLA the numbers are: Not. Even. Close. Much harder to get into med school.

http://www.apb.ucla.edu/sp2000/ngd.pdf

UCLA? Yeah, right. Try USC grad school, production. When I was on the admission review board we had 5,000 applications for 50 spots... maybe things have changed in the intervening years but the fact remains that only the very best get into USC grad school (Cinema/production) OR med school.

That being said: Your. Point. Is. What?

SeanDSchaffer

11-18-2006, 03:57 AM

The following article was taken at random from the Internet. It sets out a perception that is widespread in the business. It's not just me, I assure you.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,464277,00.html (http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,464277,00.html)

That said, I do believe that this is still a marginal issue where fiction is concerned. If your work is not marketable per se then no amount of looks or youth are going to be enough. It's just an advantage, that's all. The publicist will have an easier time getting your face into the colour supps and that sort of thing. Publishers and agents do consider such things. They have to.

In this respect, however, novelists should consider themselves fortunate, if the post below is anything to go by... (see my next post...)

Okay, I read the article, and found out that according to one agent quoted in the article, this obsession with youth in the writing business "is a British phenomenon". With the highest of respect to the people of the U.K., they do not represent all of the publishing industry.

Further, I read that the same publishers that have this said obsession with youth, have their bestseller lists populated with authors in their "40's and 50's". This does not sound to me like a world-wide epidemic of publishers only going for young or beautiful.

So according to the very article you gave us to look at, the writing game is not about youth or beauty; it's about the Craft of writing and how good a writer is at that Craft. This youth and beauty thing seems to be nothing more than a fad, which will most likely go away in time.

Sassenach

11-18-2006, 04:03 AM

UCLA? Yeah, right. Try USC grad school, production. When I was on the admission review board we had 5,000 applications for 50 spots... maybe things have changed in the intervening years but the fact remains that only the very best get into USC grad school (Cinema/production) OR med school.

That being said: Your. Point. Is. What?

My point is [obviously] that it's much more difficult to be admitted to med school than film school.

And apparently I was unaware that UCLA is held in such disdain.

SeanDSchaffer

11-18-2006, 04:28 AM

Are novelists interested in becoming part of a business? No. They just want to sell their manuscript, right? To see it in print.

I couldn't help but notice this little tidbit. As a novelist myself, I am sure I know just a tad bit better than you do what I am interested in.

That said, I chose novel writing as my career. If I only wanted to see my name in print, I could have gone to Lazerquick and had them print up my manuscript. No, I am interested in making a living at this thing called novel writing, and I do not appreciate anyone telling me what I am interested in without first consulting me.

Richard White

11-18-2006, 04:59 AM

I guess I should check with my cousin. He used to teach at USC in Film production and TV production back in the 80's and 90s.

PerditaDrury

11-18-2006, 06:35 AM

I couldn't help but notice this little tidbit. As a novelist myself, I am sure I know just a tad bit better than you do what I am interested in.

That said, I chose novel writing as my career. If I only wanted to see my name in print, I could have gone to Lazerquick and had them print up my manuscript. No, I am interested in making a living at this thing called novel writing, and I do not appreciate anyone telling me what I am interested in without first consulting me.

Shall I assume you're joking?... I can't tell. I was making a sweeping generalization as I can't possibly know why novelists embark on that course... except, and I'm guessing, they love to read them.

To say I don't know what you are interested in, or anybody for that matter, is true but I do know what I'm interested in. I've written three true crime books and I sold my first novel two years ago to one of the majors; I've received an advance for the next two in the series. Novel writing has become my hobby as it's not that lucrative a profession, not like the film world anyway. I wrote the first one simply because I got an advance to do so -- my agent liked one of my non-fiction books so much that he wanted me to fictionalize it. Sales are good and I've sold the film rights.

Novel writing is not my career but I'm good at it.

I enjoy having something bound that I've written on my shelf that isn't held together with brads.

Congratulations on it being your career. It's a worthwhile one.

aruna

11-18-2006, 11:12 AM

I suspect that the premise that most writers who have success do so before the age of 50 is true. Ambition, drive, and maximum brain ability provided by youth probably, on average, trump the experience of age.

NDG

What makes you think that ambition, drive and maximum brain ability are a prerogative of youth? In my own experience, all three of these have INCREASED in the last 5 - 10 years. It's all about who you are and how you apply yourself. Those who get rusty in their 50's have only themselves to blame (always excluding illness.)

When I was 23, I had a conversation with a very wise man, an older man for whom I have the highest respect. When we first met, he asked me what my profession was. I said, "I'm a writer." (I had worked as a journalist at the time). I never forgot his next words: "First you must have something to write about."

What use is drive, ambition and brainpower when you know little about life itself? How are you going to people your novels?

SeanDSchaffer

11-18-2006, 11:55 AM

Shall I assume you're joking?... I can't tell. I was making a sweeping generalization as I can't possibly know why novelists embark on that course... except, and I'm guessing, they love to read them.

No, I'm not joking, Perdita. If you could not tell that, then might I suggest you read my post again?

To say I don't know what you are interested in, or anybody for that matter, is true but I do know what I'm interested in.

I could not care less what you are interested in. All I see writing these nice little tiffs at me is a, well, the words would not be acceptable here, I'm afraid. Let's suffice it to say you have a bad attitude, if you think I give a rat's rear end what you are interested in. My beef is with your assumption that all novelists only want to sell a stupid little manuscript and don't want to be part of a real business.

I've written three true crime books and I sold my first novel two years ago to one of the majors; I've received an advance for the next two in the series.

Fair enough. Titles please? ISBNs?

Novel writing has become my hobby as it's not that lucrative a profession, not like the film world anyway. I wrote the first one simply because I got an advance to do so

LOL. You don't write a novel after you get your advance. You write it first, and then you get the advance after your work has been accepted by a publisher.

my agent liked one of my non-fiction books so much that he wanted me to fictionalize it. Sales are good and I've sold the film rights.

Hmmm. What book, and what film, would that be?

Novel writing is not my career but I'm good at it.

That, my friend, is up to the readers, not you, to decide.

I enjoy having something bound that I've written on my shelf that isn't held together with brads.

I take it you think Lazerquick only does brads for binding? But hey, you're in the screen writing business; I'm sure film companies enjoy having scripts presented in hardbound book form...

Congratulations on it being your career. It's a worthwhile one.

Yes, I know it is. That's why I chose the field.

anodyne

11-18-2006, 12:27 PM

This thread is as good as the "are men better writers" thread.

No, writing is for whoever has the passion. Age is no bar. Odd question.

But... but... men are better writers!

As long as the item in question is their name in the snow.

</ducks>

Arkie

11-18-2006, 07:00 PM

“What the beginning writer needs, discouraging as it is to hear, is not a set of rules but mastery—among other things, mastery of the art of breaking so-called rules. When an artist of true authority speaks—someone like Homer, Dante, Shakespeare, Racine, Dostoevsky, or Melville—we listen, all attention, even if what he says seems at first a little queer. (At any rate we listen if we’re old enough, experienced enough, so that we know what kinds of things are boring, juvenile, simple-minded, and what things are not.”
--John Gardner—“The Art of Fiction,”—Vintage Books Edition, New York, 1983(8).

Dave.C.Robinson

11-18-2006, 08:28 PM

It sounds to me like writing is only a young person's game in Hollywood, and that only because of the prejudices of the industry.

Sean D. Schaffer

11-18-2006, 08:30 PM

I've always heard that most of the entertainment media, writing, music, art, etc. is a young persons field. Meaning, most creative stuff is done by people in their 20s and 30s and that its rare for older people to be successful.

Are there any first-time writers out there who became successful as they entered their second half century of existence?

I've never heard of this before. I always thought that what was important was an author's dedication to the Craft, and their skill in telling a good story.

I'm surprised anyone would think that creative writing is only for young people.

However, I shouldn't be too surprised, as I'm in my thirties, and my imagination is not what it used to be. But at the same time, I can probably attribute that to too much television. When I was a teenager, my creativity was immense. But that was a time when I did not have a television to watch all hours of the day. When I think back on it, I find that the day I got the television, directly coincides with the time I began to lose what imagination I had.

You see, once I had the TV, I had little or no reason to read. I'm finding now that I've had to get rid of the television. Since then, my time is spent doing much more reading than I have been doing, and it is far more enjoyable. Consequently, my imagination is coming back in force. I am quite pleased with the results.