how did you learn to write?

[Dlouc]

I'm interested to know how more advanced writers (Where I'd like to be) got there, from being a novice (where I am now). What was most helpful? working with other writers your own level? having an expierenced writer help find flaws? Read books on the subject? Read your favorite books, and work to imitate them? Or just from hard lessons of trial and error?

In my classes in highschool, there were more required essays and reports than most other classes. For various reasons, I've always wanted to write, so after I learned a few basics, I started to read my favorite books to see how basic writing principles differ between the two differnt types of writing. I've learned how to adapt most of them, and continued to learn much more. I was wondering if anybody else had a similar expierence, or to see what esle I could try. thanks.

[Jamesaritchie]

Reading was far and away the most important thing I ever did. I'm not sure I ever did "learn" to write fiction. I'd been reading all my life, and it seems to me every short story and every novel is an example of what we're supposed to do, and how we're supposed to do it.

I was a high school dropout at the time, so I did spend about three weeks learning grammar, but that's about it. Then I sat down and wrote a story, submitted it, and it sold.

I still don't believe in showing my writing to anyone except editors, but I have read many how-to books over the years. I find most of them far more helpful as inspiration than as teaching tools. I have found two or three very gelpful, but not really in teaching me anything about the nuts and bolts of writing itself. My two favorite how-to books are Bradbury's "Zen in the Art of Writing," and King's "On Writing."

[preyer]

just for what it's worth, which ain't much (i hope you're not inferring that by 'advanced' you mean 'published,' as if you can't be one without being the other), i imagine we all at some point emulate our favourite writers. that's the thief in us, eh? and for the longest time i thought my 'voice' was, hm, 'wrong' because it didn't seem a single other writer out there was doing the same thing. then i picked up iris murdoch and realized that our styles are similar and i would be okay.

for me, it was more trial and error. keep in mind i'm not published, but i think i'm more or less readable. i'm not a voracious reader, not anymore anyway. most of what i pick up might as well be fill-in-the-blank. i'm almost embarassed to admit it, but i enjoy those old time-life books. worse than that, i think that were i to strive for any style, i'd be quite impressed with myself to be at that level. that i admire that style, i try to incorporate it comfortably in just the way i write naturally.

it's inevitable you'll pick up a how-to book. it's written in the stars. i've done it, he's done, she's done it and you'll do it. while it probably won't destroy your artistic style, bear in mind there's the wheat and there's the chaff in those things, that typically the best you'll take away from it is a nugget from the stream. (i'm trying to use all the cliches i can think of here.) i love the ones where the author says the best thing you can do is not read this book, but since you're here.... a good buddy of mine pores over every horse racing book he can get. and of all the systems he's ever learned, none of them has made him rich. so when a great author tells you how to do something, well, that might just work for them. they might help get you over the hump regarding particular issues, like character description. still, i'd consider it suggestions and not 'this is the way is has to be if you ever want to sell your work.'

all those things you mentioned in the first paragraph are what goes into being a writer, i reckon. personally, i can't point to just one as being 'the way.' if someone does, that just means that was their way. it's going to be different for everyone. you've got a good jump on things with the internut-- wish it was around when i was in school.

your best tool will be someone who tells you their honest opinion, in that i believe. an endless parade of accolades won't help as much as a single 'your characters are too flat' comment.

would it be fair to say that 80% of being able to write is self-taught by virtue of writing?

[maestrowork]

Novel write: by reading novels, reading books on novel writing, and taking classes at UCLA.

Also learned a lot from an editor.

[Man with twohanded sword]

What (seems) to work for me:
-Read Dwight Swain's Techniques of a Selling Author"
-Join a good workshop/crit group - one where they actually tell you what doesn't work, rather than cuddle each other's egos
-Write lots
-Become intimate your subject area (i.e., if you write fantasy, learn the basics of swordplay, go camping etc etc)

[Writing Again]

I consider myself advanced as a writer; a novice in screen writing: I have been published in the past, but so far back as to be meaningless today.

Never went to high school; never went to junior high school; never passed a single grade: My mother taught me how to read; My mother taught me good grammar; My mother taught me to love ideas. I owe nothing to any teacher except a dislike of authority.

Never met a real writer in real life: Never corresponded with any until I came across these forums a couple of years ago on the net.

So how did I learn to write?

I can give you a one word answer: Love.

I love to read: As far back as I can remember I would read anything and everything I could get my hands on.

I love words: When I was a little kid I could talk about a new word for days; I drove adults crazy, especially teachers who did not want to discuss anything they were not assigned to teach. I knew words the adults did not, and could use them in ways the adults were ignorant of. I was sent home for insolence because I told the teacher the word "goodly" damn well did exist and was in the dictionary.

I love grammar: I'm rusty, I'll admit, but I still know what a prepositional phrase is and what an adverbial clause is. I think grammar is fun; that it should be played with and enjoyed, not worshiped as though it were some graven image. You would think this would have garnered me some recognition in school, but it had the opposite effect. Teachers hated me.

I love ideas: I like to think about them and play with them, it does not matter how mundane or far fetched. Fiction is one of the best places to play with ideas; you don't have to limit your concepts to "reality" or "logical" or any other doctrine of thought, instead you can explore possibilities.

As for imitating writers I admired? No. I discovered satire at a very early age through Anatole France, beginning with Penguin Island. So I spent some years satirizing those writers I liked and lampooning those I did not like.

[stormie267]

Read books on writing. There are plenty out there. Read the thread "Learn Writing with Uncle Jim." Practice writing, putting it aside, then rereading and rewriting your work. Polish your grammar. Several good investments: dictionary, thesaurus, grammar book, Writer's Market 2005. Other books you can borrow at the library.

[Gala]

Writing my first million words, then culling it for publishable material was my best teacher.

[aka eraser]

Count me in among the "read plenty" crowd. I was a voracious reader when young. I remember my parents despairing one summer because they'd rented a cottage at a lake for a week when I was about 10. Except for an occasional fishing foray I never left the cottage. The owners had left a stack of Readers Digests and I read each one from cover-to-cover while my sibs were out swimming and playing.

About the only thing I've never read is a book about writing. Though I'm tempted to pick up King's book because of all the enthusiastic referrals.

Reading much imbues a writer with an instinctive grasp of grammar and what works and what doesn't in telling a story.

[Jamesaritchie]

I don't think it's possible to learn anything with emulating those who are successful, whether it's done intentionally or not. Imitaion is simply the way the human brain works, and it's the number one tool used in teaching all creative endeavors. In order to learn how to paint well, students are taught first to imitate the techniques of the masters. The same goes for play an instrument, or writing fiction.

Reading is the number one most important thing any writer can do. It's simply impossible to learn how to write well without a great deal of reading. As King put it, "If you don't have the time to read, you don't have the tools to write." It's true.

There are many, many ways of writing well, but every last one has some things in common. How much you read and how much you write, for example. If you aren't an avid reader, and preferably a widely read avid reader, you will never be a very good writer. That's just how it is. Every time you sit down to write you will, at best, be trying to reinvent the wheel.

I've been in this business a long time, and I've yet to meet a good, or even a mediocre, writer who wasn't also an avid reader.

Many complain about the quality of some published writing, but from wading through slush piles I can say unequivocally that the worst published writing out there is at least ten times better than almost anything you find in a slush pile.

Can you be a good writer without being published? Yes, of course. Can you be a good writer withut writing well enough to be published? No. Never. Nor can you be a good writer without a lot of reading. It just isn;t going to happen.

You also have to write a lot. Writing is like anything else in that the more you do it, the better you get. It's been said we all have a million words of garbage in use, and we won't write well until we get rid of this. It's largely true. I was published from the start, but I'm sure I'd written at least a million words before I found true gold.

To write well, you read often and widely, and you write as often as possible. With all the differences in writing style, in genres, etc., all have this much in common.

To be a published writer, a successful writer, if you will, you first do these things, and then, in my opinion, the best possible thing any writer can do is follow Heinlein's Rules For Writing.

HEINLEIN'S RULES FOR WRITING
1. You must write.
2. You must finish what you write.
3. You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order.
4. You must put the work on the market.
5. You must keep the work on the market until it is sold.

For a wonderful breakdown of these rules, go to: www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm (http://www.sfwriter.com/ow05.htm)

[Tish Davidson]

I'm another in the camp of avid and varied reading. Before I was published, I had taken only the requisite freshman college English class and never took another one. That class did teach me something though. The professor simply returned papers ungraded and unread after he found the third mistake in mechanics. You had to find the mistakes and resubmit it over and over until it had fewer than 3 mistakes. That taught me to pay attention to mechanics and to proofread. It didn't make me a writer, but it did teach me grammar and correct usage.

Besides reading widely, I think it helps to read critically. If you are having a problem with a particular aspect of your writing, say transitions, or handling big shifts in time, or foreshadowing, I think it is instructive to read the writing of several authors you admire and concentrate on how they handle the issue that is confounding you. Often by concentrating on one aspect of their writing, the solution to your own problem comes to you almost subconsciously, not necessarily through imitation.

Other than that, write, put it away, write something new, bring out piece #1 and look at it critically, revise,
put it away, write something new, repeat process with piece #2, etc. Write, write, write some more. Submit. Don't take rejection personally. Write some more. Pay attention to any personal/individual comments from editors. Revise. Write, write write.

[maestrowork]

I've been in this business a long time, and I've yet to meet a good, or even a mediocre, writer who wasn't also an avid reader.

I have. And I think I'm a pretty good writer, but not an avid reader. I watch more movies than I read books.

But I do read and learn when I need/want to. I've read at least 5 or 6 books on novel writing, and I also took classes, etc. While I'm not an avid reader, I am definitely an avid learner.

I think being a learner has more importance than being a "reader" IMHO. You can read all you want, but if you don't learn from them or absorb it, reading a lot won't help you with your writing.

[arrowqueen]

Sorry. I believe in constant reading too. After all, if you don't read, where are you going to steal your ideas? ;)

I wrote my first book (a collection of fairy stories, complete with illustrations) at the tender age of six - and I'm still at it, umpteen years later. The only difference is that these days they actually pay me!

Cheers,
aq

[dub]

I agree with everyone who said, "read." Indeed, reading good writing helps a young writer to see the way down the path. Study the English language, and study another language, learn the function of words. While emulation may be one way, each person writes with their own hand. Emulation is fine, Imitation is not.

Then, punish yourself, with non sense goals ... 1000 words per day or something like that - learn what it is to bleed over your sentences. Fill your waste baskets a hundred times with each word that sends a reader screaming into madness. Then, develop your style, find your zone, and if that does not work, take up scrubbing floors.

To me, at least, writing is an act of love, and often an act of hate. But, to love or hate, one must embrace the art without reservation.

Thoughts from the swamp - dub

[Kempo Kid]

How did I learn to write?

By writing. I started writing not long after I learned to read. Okay, when you're six years old you're not very good, but I loved stories and I wanted new ones. So I wrote some. And I've continued to write, whether it's fiction, nonfiction, poetry, technical, or corporate.

And yeah, it goes without saying that I read voraciously. I'm always reading. You watch something long enough, and you begin to get the hang of it, how it's done, what works, and what doesn't.

And I do read a lot of books about writing, some as down-in-the-trenches how-tos, and some just as inspiration.

But mostly, I write.

[vstrauss]

I'm another "read as much and as widely as you can" person. I've been a voracious reader all my life, and I've learned as much from reading as I have from writing. I think it's reading that gave me the spark to be a writer.

Practice is the second thing. You learn to write by writing. Keep pounding out those words.

(And I would say that editing and revision is a very important part of that. Not just because self-editing is a vital part of the writer's craft, but because the process of reworking your writing so that it comes ever closer to your vision of what you want to write--which is and should be far beyond what you actually do write--will help you to write it better the next time around. Heinlein's third rule, no matter how it's reinterpreted, is a bad rule, IMO.)

Criticism is the third thing. You learn from being critiqued--not just how to do it better, but how to understand your own work well enough to know when not to do what people suggest. This is the iffiest of the three, I think, because it's not so easy to find a good mentor.

What hasn't worked for me:

Classes. This is a YMMV thing, but I took a creative writing class in college, and it was an almost completely negative experience. A lot of it was the teacher's fault: he was a poor leader, and didn't do enough to prevent some of the fragile-egoed budding writers from savaging others in order to make themselves feel more secure. Some of it was my problem: we were encouraged to write short stories, and I'm a shitty short story writer (which I suspected then, but didn't yet fully realize). All in all, it knocked me off the rails and it took me a while to get back on.

How-to books. I didn't even know these existed when I first started writing, and was never motivated to check them out later on. I have read a bit of Julia Cameron's The Artist's Way, on the recommendation of a well-meaning but seriously misguided friend--that's enough woo-woo how-to for several lifetimes.

- Victoria

[mr mistook]

I'm obviously no expert. I'm still struggling with my first novel, but I'd like to chime in, if I may. I took a journal for something like 8 years straight, and I think that helped. The last few volumes of that, was typewritten, and I was making a conscious effort to write it as though it were to be published. I still think that was some of my best writing to date.

I've done a lot of blogging since then, but I try to write as if I'm a columnist... not too long winded, a dash of humor, and wrapping it all up in a neat bow at the end. I think that's helped me.

As for reading. Who can disagree? But I think it helps to have a wide-ranging diet. Fiction is great, but good non-fiction, and good poetry are just as valuable. I think also, it's good to delve into different era's of writing. I don't think anybody would disagree with that.

One of my favorite things in College was to find the first novels by all the classic authors. Everybody's read "The Great Gatsby" by Fitzgerald, but how many have read "This Side of Paradise"?. How many have read "Down & Out in Paris & London" by Orwell. I liked those ones. I could feel their youth, but at the same time see their greatness. They inspired me to emulate. They didn't seem as untouchable.

This next bit might sound a li'l freaky, but one of the most interesting reads I ever had was a modern english version of The Bible. If you wanna learn how to sum things up, that's the go-to book. Five pages will walk you through seven generations and somehow have you feeling that you know all the key players of a two-century span. And there is a very light, poetic touch to it all. Lots of imagery, lots of metaphore, and deep layers of symbolism hiding under every word.

Shakespeare of course is another must-read. Even if it's just one play. Once you get in the swing of the old-style language, you really start to see why this guy was such a genius. It's perfectly succinct, and perfectly poetic. He seems even to take into account the way the sound of the syllables roll off one word and into the next. He works the language almost like music.

[Kempo Kid]

Let me add Chaucer to that list. Chaucer wrote some rollicking good tales! In college I learned to read Old and Middle English so I could read Beowulf and Chaucer's Tales without translation. I don't necessarily recommend that route for everyone, but for me it was worth the trouble.

[preyer]

let me ask you published folk this then: are you now reading to learn or more for enjoyment's sake? honestly, after describing your character, say, using the same approach you've used in your last three books, will reading book upon book change that style? you're not going to suddenly have drastic changes in the way you choreograph love scenes, are you? i'm not putting reading down, i'm just trying to find out what's left for you to learn about how to be a good writer. sure, we all have our strengths and weaknesses to deal with. how does reading twenty novels help you, and, be honest, is 'learning' occassionally an euphamism for petty theft?

that sets up my next question: how much of a novel do you write for yourself and how much do you write, if any, because you feel you need to to sell the book? do you sometimes take a more generic approach to style and content because it might be easier to sell that way as opposed to saying the hell with it, this is the way *i* want it, critics and editors be damned?

do you feel the overall quality of writing has improved in the modern age? or do you feel true inspiration has been watered-down due to writers taking how-to books to heart and nary straying the proven course? in other words, have we generally ceded to the notion that 'these are things you have to say and how you have to say them' if you ever want to get published?

[novelator]

Well, there's always something to learn about the craft. New ground is broken all the time. There's no "proven" method, and this is not a craft you can master. Can't be done. Why? Because writing, much like society, is in flux, it's fluid, it's not set in stone. All an author can do is alter the course, not dam the river. Even formula romance changes, the readership tires of the old, which creates a need for something new.

I don't write with an eye toward getting published. I write the stories that are in me and must come out. And I don't read to learn the craft necessarily, though I'm sure it doesn't hurt. I read because I enjoy reading.

In my humble opinion, if a person writes simply to get published, they are probably wasting their time. But again, that's only my humble opinion, nothing that's set in stone.

Mari

[James D Macdonald]

let me ask you published folk this then: are you now reading to learn or more for enjoyment's sake?

I read because reading is what I do. Yesterday, I found a paperback novel in the trash that someone had set out on the sidewalk. I picked it up and stuck it in my pocket. Later on, while waiting for some Chinese takeout, I pulled it out of my pocket and read the first couple of chapters. (Someone had earlier gone through, and with a pencil glossed some of the words in the text in Spanish. This provided another dimension.) When I go to the movies I take a paperback to read while waiting for the show to start.

Any time I'm not doing something else, I'm reading. When I was in the military, I read while standing in the chow line, while standing in the pay line, and any other line I stood in. (Finished The Brothers Karamazov that way in five days.)

[Gala]

let me ask you published folk this then: are you now reading to learn or more for enjoyment's sake? honestly, after describing your character, say, using the same approach you've used in your last three books, will reading book upon book change that style?

I choose for enjoyment, and notice style and syntax as I go. If I own the book I'll mark it. If I'm inspired by it, I'll make notes on separate paper, to understand why.

I read several books a week. If a book isn't handy (I bought a bigger purse so I can carry books in lines and such) I read labels or brochures; anything handy. Always gotta have something to read.

I carry writing paper of some sort at all times. Known to resort to library receipts stuck in book.

I read voraciously on the Internet, and maintain a blog for friends to sample my writing. They like it and it keeps them from begging to read the current revision of my wop.

[annied]

Reading a LOT and reading a lot of genres. I try not to limit myself just to science fiction and fantasy, even though that's mainly what I write.

Writing a LOT. I still have a collection of short stories of a sci-fi exploration group called "The Shamrock Fighters". I wrote it when I was 13 and the writing is GODAWFUL!!! But I still keep it as a reminder of how far I've been and how far there is to go.

As far as formal instruction goes, I took a correspondence course with Long Ridge Writers Group (based in MA). I had to complete 12 assignments, and by the end of the course, I had at least 3 manuscripts to send to publishers. I had a mentor who was very helpful and had suggestions on how I could improve. (Of those assignments, two have been published). Before LR, I was reluctant to send stuff in; now I have an easier time of it.

Annie:D

[maestrowork]

I think by the time you've written three books, you should know your style already. Just because I read Shakespeare or Tokien or Stephing King doesn't mean I'm going to write like them.

I read for enjoyment. If I can learn from the masters, all the better. But I'm not going to immitate them. I'm very comfortable with my own style now.

[arrowqueen]

I read because, like writing, it's a compulsion. If I don't, I get twitchy. My idea of heaven is a hot bath, clean sheets and a pile of new books from the library/bookstore/charity shop/jumble sale...

I read everywhere (well, except while driving. That'd be silly!) Television is wasted on me because I don't watch it, I listen, while I read. Even when my daughter was a baby, I fed her with her bottle in one hand and a book in the other - and now she's a reader and a writer too.

Addicts the lot of us - and quite beyond redemption!

[Eowyn Eomer]

How do you know when you've become advanced as opposed to being novice? Is it dependent upon how many books you've had published?

[Writing Again]

Eowyn Eomer

How do you know when you've become advanced as opposed to being novice?

This is an interesting and complex question.

Someone showed me a study done, I've lost the site now, that discussed competence.

Incompetent people were unable to spot competence and or incompetence in other people.

And it has nothing to do with agreement and disagreement. You should know if the person disagreeing with you is disagreeing from ignorance and prejudice or has given thought to their position.

So I'd say one of the best ways to spot ability within yourself is to determine how well you can spot it in others.

[vstrauss]

>> let me ask you published folk this then: are you now reading to learn or more for enjoyment's sake?<<

Both. I can't separate them anymore. I always learn from what I read, even if it's how not to do something.

>>honestly, after describing your character, say, using the same approach you've used in your last three books, will reading book upon book change that style?<<

It's more subtle than that. I'm beyond worrying about nuts and bolts stuff, and there are areas of my writing about which I feel very confident. But there are areas in which I feel much less so, and there are a zillion things I can imagine writing about that I've never written about before. In those areas, there's always more to be learned, and I think that analyzing how other writers do things is a great way of learning.

>>and, be honest, is 'learning' occassionally an euphamism for petty theft?<<

Who was it who said "Good writers borrow, but great writers steal"? Something like that, anyway. Sure, I steal stuff, if by stealing you mean getting great ideas from other writers, or seeing something done badly that I think I could do better, or being inspired by wonderful writing, or even borrowing a nifty detail or two. This doesn't mean I reproduce someone else's work. I think we all do this, all the time, even if we're not directly conscious of it.

>>how much of a novel do you write for yourself and how much do you write, if any, because you feel you need to to sell the book?<<

I think there's always some degree of compromise, if you're a professional writer. Mainly, though, I write for myself.

>>do you feel the overall quality of writing has improved in the modern age?<<

It has changed, as it does in every age. There's always been crap writing; brilliant writing is always in the minority. If good writing seems like it's more representative of previous ages, that's because it's what survives.

- Victoria

[mr mistook]

I just want to say, in the few weeks that I've been associated with this MB, my writing has improved dramatically. It really does help to soak in the advice and attitudes of other writers, both published and novice.

As for rebellion against convention - a sentiment I've seen expressed on more than a few threads, I can only bring my musical experience to bear. Hopefully the world of literature is a little more mature than the record industry, but in any event, you tread into the uncharted waters at your own risk. If you're a genius, then perhaps you'll discover a new land and be rewared. On the other hand, you might be shunned by jealous peers and die penniless - only to be venerated long after your death.

If you're not a genius, and you break with convention, you'll surely be laughed off the scene... that is unless a drugged-up editor decides that your work is masterful, which can happen in music, so why not fiction?

I think the message from all the veterans out here is fairly clear. Tell your story! If the advice from the front lines can serve to make it more readable, and more understandable, then use it! If for some reason, your story is so mind-bending that it absolutely defies every convention, then ONWARD, brave soldier! but don't look for justification in the main-stream. If you're lucky, a few peers will get where you're coming from, but can they help you get published? Probably not.

You should know if the person disagreeing with you is disagreeing from ignorance and prejudice or has given thought to their position.

This is a very empowering statement. A good writer, no matter how unconventional, will be able to recognize what is expected by the main stream, and what advances are championed by the Avant-Garde. Knowing that, a criticism should be easily pinpointed as either conservative, liberal, or worthless. If you can't tell the difference, then you have no business seeking opinions.

[preyer]

avant garde is basically anti-mainstream, eh? so i'd imagine such a person would very accutely be aware of what mainstream entails. parody itself is funny because it's ironic.

i don't really want to be venerated long after my death. unless i'm considered on the same level of shakespeare or e.a. poe (trust me, not gonna happen), i much rather prefer getting my rewards before i die. so, i'm prepared to make concessions, especially because i try to be a moderately extreme writer with content. after all, it's their money at risk, not mine, and while encouraged, no one put a gun to my head to write. i'm not worried about being shunned if for the right reasons.

how much of the artist is lost with each book while continually trying to write within convention? i suppose this is where pseudonyms come in handy, when you feel you have to stretch your wings and not worry so much about paying the bills, much like band members having a solo project on the side.

[mr mistook]

how much of the artist is lost with each book while continually trying to write within convention?

Potentially, a writer's whole soul can be sold to convention! You say you're willing to make concessions to pay the bills. Well, that's the day you start selling-out isn't it?

If you can't risk poverty or obscurity for your creative freedom, then get out now and learn to sell vacuum cleaners!

If you have any faith in your abilities, then you'll write for the sake of writing. Yes, everybody dreams of being published, but that's not the point, and if you think it is... you're not a writer. You're just an opportunist.

[Euan Harvey]

After all, if you don't read, where are you going to steal your ideas?

:lol

Shurely shome mishtake? You mean 'adapt' don't you?

:b

[Writing Again]

preyer

avant garde is basically anti-mainstream, eh?

Mainstream readers do like to feel themselves adventurous, but in small doses.

Let me liken this to a grizzled woodsman, a tour guide, and the people on tour.

The woodsman can see himself as a "real man": look down on the people as worthless pantie wastes who wouldn't know a brown bear from a grizzly: He can look down on the tour guide as selling his soul to entertain the ignorant masses.

The tour guide can see himself as sharing the woods with people who would never experience it (at least not safely) without his help: He can view the woodsman as a ragged clothed elitist: He can see the tourists as people who need a break from their mundane city lives, a much needed break he can help provide.

The people can see themselves as seeking a pleasant, relaxing time away from their everyday worries: Can see the guide as a mentor and a friend: See the grizzled, possibly smelly, woodsman as strange, eccentric, possibly a threat.

Some guides will travel the safest, most boring, least interesting of trails. Some of the people who have taken this tour before will drift away to seek a more interesting guide.

Some guides will take their tours right up to the edge of the woodsman's habitat, perhaps so close they can see the grizzly walk by down below.

The people are out there.

What you have to decide as a writer is do you want to be a guide or a literary elitist.

If you choose to be a guide then each novel you write you have to ask yourself, "How close to the edge do I want to take them this time?"

[vstrauss]

>>Yes, everybody dreams of being published, but that's not the point, and if you think it is... you're not a writer. You're just an opportunist.<<

And I say that any writer who makes this kind of statement is a liar, or indulging in some serious retroactive justification.

No offense. But being published absolutely is the point. I'm not talking about money here, but about readers. I write to be read.

- Victoria

[mr mistook]

Allow me to hang my head in shame and back-pedal off yestersay's statement. I'll admit I can come off as an idealist snob sometimes, and just a plain jerk often enoug too.:smack

I was NOT trying to say that everybody who wants to be published is an opportunist.

I meant, that if your *only* motivation for writing was to make big money, and make it fast, and do so without any respect for convention... then you're not a writer. You're just looking for a get rich quick scheme. I'm not trying to accuse anybody out here of that either.

I'm just saying that if the love of writing *for it's own sake*, is not there... you won't stick with it long enough to make a single buck. Further... if you want to be unconventional, and pioneer your own wild style of writing, that's nice, but it makes it that much harder to get published, hence you have to love writing that much more in order to stick with it.

[rtilryarms]

I am a product of this board

[Coco82]

I've always had a knack for creative writing and worked hard in school to better it.

[anatole ghio]

Someone showed me a study done, I've lost the site now, that discussed competence.

Incompetent people were unable to spot competence and or incompetence in other people.

Don't have time to read the whole thread right now, but this post caught my eye.

I read that study too. It boiled down to incompetent people often OVERVALUED their own skill set, simply because they lacked the experience to correctly judge their own talents. Without experience, they simply followed their own ego and overvalued their skills.

People with much experience not only knew how to judge the skills of themselves and others, but had also develop their won skill set and could accurately gauge where they stood in relation to others and what areas they could improve upon.

It was a humbling study and gave me much to consider when I first read it.

- Anatole

[ElizabethJames]

Scary.