Can you be taught to write?

Edward G · Dec 31, 2007

I know you can be taught the mechanics, such as grammar, punctuation, usage, vocabulary. I know you can be taught the general techniques of fiction, but after that, aren't we all on our own?

It's something I read by CeeCee in another post about betas and their potential affect on authorial voice. If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

Ultimately, isn't a writer a writer because of their unique voice? Even if an author chooses to write in completely passive voice, if they think that's how their original story should read, isn't that how the story actually should read?

George Orwell uses long paragraphs and sentences, he often uses dramatic summary over "showing" his story scenes. He is often didactic and uses his characters to make speeches. In a creative writing class, none of this would be acceptable, but how can anyone say it's wrong? If G.O. Invented the story, 1984, then the exact words he uses to tell it are the words that are supposed to be there, just as they are presented. Isn't this so?

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

(This dilema hit me today as I rode my motorcycle over 400 miles. My wife drives the RV, I follow behind on the motorcycle. We used to put the motorcycle in the truck bed, but we bought a bigger bike and it doesn't really fit well. Besides, I frankly like the long rides. And it gives her a break from me, I'm sure.)

HourglassMemory · Dec 31, 2007

Why be 'taught' when you can learn by your yourself?
I was 'taught' by hundreds of people. Both directly(people directly giving me advice) and indirectly(Reading books and famous authors giving interviews, for example).
At least that's how it goes for me.

I once started writing my book, and I knew nothing about writing. It was my first book ever. It was my fisrt ever attempt at writing sometihng like I saw on the shelves. I didn't do any research about "how to write a book" or anything"
And a few months later I went to see if the whole structure of the story was there. Like... if there was conflict and if I started the story where the problem started. And all those little characteristics people constantly talk about.
My story fit the standarts pretty well, and I didn't "study" for it.

The way it was written was crap, but I'm WAY better now.
Just write and have fun!

Moon Daughter · Dec 31, 2007

I don't think we can be taught certain things, like our voices. I think our voice can be influenced though. As for being taught how to write, I'd say it's essentially about the grammar, proper syntax, proper word usage, etc. But I don't think a person can be taught creativity really, which really makes ones story. I think a person can only be taught so much because if we're taught strictly one way to write, then wouldn't our stories be similar? And I don't mean plot-wise, but the way it reads and it would probably become more predictable.

And now I've lost my train of thought...

Edward G · Dec 31, 2007

Moon Daughter said:
I don't think we can be taught certain things, like our voices. I think our voice can be influenced though. As for being taught how to write, I'd say it's essentially about the grammar, proper syntax, proper word usage, etc. But I don't think a person can be taught creativity really, which really makes ones story. I think a person can only be taught so much because if we're taught strictly one way to write, then wouldn't our stories be similar? And I don't mean plot-wise, but the way it reads and it would probably become more predictable.

And now I've lost my train of thought...

Yes, all the writing would sound the same, like newspaper news articles. I guess I'm concerned mostly with if it's even possible to critique an original story. If it's original, and if the writer feels it is finished, isn't it perfect?

Perhaps one has to decide if a story is personally original or if the story exists for anyone to find and write on a first come-first serve basis. If a story could potentially belong to anyone, then it can be critiqued and perfected by mass reviews. If it's just between God and the writer, then who could ever add or subtract from it? Even the writer, him or herself: if they know they've taken it as far as they can, even they should not be allowed to change it. Right? No?

James D. Macdonald · Dec 31, 2007

Can you be taught to write?

Yes.

Next question?

Pup · Dec 31, 2007

TomBerkeley said:
It's something I read by CeeCee in another post about betas and their potential affect on authorial voice. If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

Depends. Is the writing the story, or is our story always there, behind the writing?

The most useful thing I find is giving a section of a WIP to someone to read, and seeing if it produces the effect I wanted.

Say I introduce a new character with a couple sentences of description and dialog, and I want the reader to distrust him, even though he seems nice. I'll ask, what did you think of him?

If the answer is, "seemed like a nice guy," then the writing isn't accomplishing what the story requires. Changing the writing based on the reader's comment actually brings forth the story better.

If the answer is, "I dunno, I wouldn't trust him," then the writing and the story are in synch.

I'll ask things like, did the pace seem fast enough? Was it always clear who was talking in that four-way conversation? Who were you rooting for in that scene? Did you wish there was more detail or could you picture it well enough? Could you tell why she wanted to do that? Did his reaction seem believable?

Any of those, I'll change the writing to bring out the story better.

The kind of comments I ignore are negative comments about what I was trying to accomplish, for better or worse. I figure that's where my own personal style and choice come in. Things like... "I didn't like the setting," or "that's too icky" or "I don't think you should take it that direction."

Changing the writing based on opinions like "too much passive voice" or "too wordy" does have more direct impact on a writer's style. But really, opinions like that are often attempts to discuss how to reach a goal, skipping past the more important point that the goal hasn't been reached, for whatever reason.

For example, if you're trying to make the readers feel like they're right beside the MC, seeing what he sees, following him through a fast-paced scene, and your readers say you've accomplished that, it doesn't really matter if you've used lots of adjectives, adverbs and passive verbs.

If readers say they were bored and the pace was slow, then wordiness and passive voice might be the cause. It might be something else. How you decide to solve the problem, to get the words to accomplish what you want them to accomplish, is, in my opinion, how you keep your own voice, while still listening to readers' input.

narnia · Dec 31, 2007

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76102

andrewhollinger · Dec 31, 2007

If it's original, and if the writer feels it is finished, isn't it perfect?

Of course it isn't perfect.

But that's how we learn. You read a book and say, "This was horrible. I will never write a story like this." Lesson learned.

I'm of the opinion that anyone can learn to write, inasmuch as anyone can learn math or an instrument. Some people, however, come by it naturally. Those people become (maybe) professional writers. My point is that we should all be able to construct a well-crafted and effective note, letter, essay, whatever. Those of us who try to be professionals may not learn much in the way of writing, but a good mentor or writers' workshop, or critic's circle should help a writer develop his or her creative process.

tjwriter · Dec 31, 2007

TomBerkeley said:
I know you can be taught the mechanics, such as grammar, punctuation, usage, vocabulary. I know you can be taught the general techniques of fiction, but after that, aren't we all on our own?

It's something I read by CeeCee in another post about betas and their potential affect on authorial voice. If we submit our writing to be critiqued, and we get critiques and we change our writing based on those critiques, haven't we lost our story?

The thing about feedback and the individual ideas of the writer is that the writer can choose whether or not the feedback is valuable. Most often the goal of a beta is someone who can spot the plot hole you left, or tell you when a passage is confusing and not clear. But whether you want follow any advice is ultimately your choice, regardless of the response. If you person tells you they don't like something, it's an opinion, but if seven people are all commenting on a certain passage that is hard to look at, it might be worth taking a second look.

Ultimately, isn't a writer a writer because of their unique voice? Even if an author chooses to write in completely passive voice, if they think that's how their original story should read, isn't that how the story actually should read?

George Orwell uses long paragraphs and sentences, he often uses dramatic summary over "showing" his story scenes. He is often didactic and uses his characters to make speeches. In a creative writing class, none of this would be acceptable, but how can anyone say it's wrong? If G.O. Invented the story, 1984, then the exact words he uses to tell it are the words that are supposed to be there, just as they are presented. Isn't this so?

The thing is, it's not changing the voice if a beta points out that Bob has red hair in Chapter 2, but in Chapter 17 runs his fingers through his black hair, and there's no mention of coloring it. The beta is not there to tell you how to write it.

If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

(This dilema hit me today as I rode my motorcycle over 400 miles. My wife drives the RV, I follow behind on the motorcycle. We used to put the motorcycle in the truck bed, but we bought a bigger bike and it doesn't really fit well. Besides, I frankly like the long rides. And it gives her a break from me, I'm sure.)

I don't think that any story is perfect. People make mistakes. After staring at something so long, it's hard to catch some of the things fresh eyes will see. A beta shouldn't be telling how to use your voice, only telling you what issues they see. Even then, you may think it's a nonissue.

To answer the question of the thread, I believe that writers can learn the methods of good storytelling by reading and writing. Practice helps.

tjwriter · Dec 31, 2007

Index to Learn Writing with Uncle Jim - which is a sticky at the top, if you search the text on the page for beta, you will find several references to beta readers with some excellent advice. I know that Uncle Jim gave some excellent advice on betas, but my brain fails to recollect where.

megan_d · Dec 31, 2007

Seems to me that your advocating the idea that each word is precious and should not be changed, ever. And if memory serves, you're all about self publishing. Maybe there's a connected to be made here....

Claudia Gray · Jan 1, 2008

I personally think there may be elements of writing that cannot be taught, but there are certainly many elements of writing that can be taught very well. And we're all certainly best off learning as much as we can to supplement whatever natural talent/inspiration we may have been given.

Stijn Hommes · Jan 1, 2008

What was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now is different. Orwell lived in another time where the way he wrote was actually a lot like the way people spoke. You can't use that as an example for current writing ideas.

RLSMiller · Jan 1, 2008

I think, as you said, you can be taught the mechanics behind writing. Just like singers can be taught proper breath control and the technical aspects to singing. But it takes more than that to be a professional writer, in my opinion.

If you're writing fiction, you need to have a good imagination. Not only that, but you have to discover your voice, and be able to inject your personality and perspective on life into your writing. Too often people try to imitate successful authors and that restricts their own voice from coming through. The technicalities and mechanics of writing are definitely important, but they are not the be all and end all. To succeed in the marketplace, you need a voice that is both distinguishable and appealing. Some people get away with high-concept plots told in a bland voice, but if you're going that way then I'd say you have to have a really amazing/controversial premise (e.g. the Da Vinci Code). Some genres, like thrillers and mysteries, emphasize plot over voice.

I think the key to being a good writer is to be aware of the constructs in writing, to acknowledge all the rules and technicalities, and to incorporate them in your own work as much as you can without stifling your voice. You do have to compromise to some extent, because the rules are there to make things easier to read. 1984 was written with an extensive use of passive voice, but that was a stylistic effect that matched very well with the story's theme of oppression and being powerless. It's an exception to the norm, and even so it bored me to death, although I acknowledge it's a very clever story and Orwell wrote it in a very clever and deliberate way.

A basic rule I learned when studying English was that you can argue and do whatever you like as long as you justify your reasons. If you're going to defy standard principles in modern fiction, make sure there's a good and clear reason for doing so. You have to know the rules to break them. You also have to remember that your particular voice/style might not be everybody's cup of tea, so don't be surprised if people don't "get" your work. It's such a subjective and individual thing, and certain styles of writing are simply more marketable than others.

Chasing the Horizon · Jan 1, 2008

Yes, anyone can learn to write, just like anyone can learn to play music, but some people will have an innate talent that makes them great writers, just like some people are born with the ability to become master musicians. Of course, talent doesn't keep you from having to learn and practice in order to become great. It just means you can go further if you work hard enough.

As for betas, I think they serve an important purpose. Until some other people read your writing, there's no way to know for sure if every scene is communicating the point you mean for it to. Since as the author you know what you mean, it's impossible to accurately judge this yourself. That's all I look for from betas, that the story I wanted to tell is what actually ended up on the page. I'm not interested in hearing critique on my style or the story itself, which is why my betas are all readers who don't write themselves. I break 'rules' right and left with my writing, and other writers seem incapable of ignoring this. My betas don't know these 'rules', so if they point something out I know it truly doesn't work.

Did Orwell use a lot of passive voice in 1984? If so, he must've done it very well, because I never noticed, and I've read that book several times. 1984 is the only 'classic' novel I've ever really enjoyed.

As for a story being 'perfect', I don't believe anything is ever perfect. The only way perhaps a story could be told perfectly would be if we could project it directly from our own heads into the mind of the reader. Writing is the bridge connecting our stories with the readers, but it's inherently imperfect and at its best can only communicate a story with a fraction of the splendor it would have if we could present it without that separation.

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 1, 2008

The emphasis on passive voice in 1984 was a particular stylistic choice which, as people have already pointed out, was meant to underscore the ways in which the dystopian society Orwell depicted strangled the capacity for direct action.

Also, it wasn't necessarily considered a successful choice at the time. Contemporary reviews of 1984 weren't all raves by any means.

For myself, I think the book succeeds on the basis of its ideas and characterizations, not on the basis of the stylistic choices. Orwell was no fan of passive voice in general, as he made amply clear in "Politics and the English Language."

Now, for a potentially tiresome rant about one of my pet hobby-horses:

Stijn Hommes said:
What was acceptable in the past and what is acceptable now is different. Orwell lived in another time where the way he wrote was actually a lot like the way people spoke.

George Orwell was born in 1903. My grandparents and great-aunts and great-uncles were all born around that time, and were from roughly the same economic and educational background as he (most from the US and Canada, admittedly, but some of my great-aunts and uncles by marriage were from the UK and Ireland).

None of them spoke the way George Orwell wrote. I've read transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, which were conducted by folks who were Orwell's contemporaries, and they didn't speak the way Orwell wrote, even in that very formal context.

Now, I'm referring to his authorial voice in his essays here. I do think that Orwell had a really good ear for how people spoke--the dialogue in 1984 is a good example of this, and I think some of the dialogue in Keep the Aspidistra Flying is very realistic as well.

But the only people I've ever heard speaking the way Orwell wrote in his essays were college professors giving lectures and politicians making speeches. I believe that Orwell chose a formal voice for his essays on purpose.

I say this not to nitpick with you, Stijn, but because I think it's both very understandable and very dangerous for people to assume that the everyday life of the past can be directly reconstructed from the formal artifacts of that time.

I do think you're right that people were, in general, more formal in their everyday speech in the first half of the 20th century than they are today--especially people from economically and educationally privileged backgrounds. However, I also think it's true that Orwell purposefully chose a formal voice, rather than an everyday voice, for his essays.

zornhau · Jan 1, 2008

Yes

Yes, there's stuff you can be taught - why should prose fiction be any different from any other art?

The idea that each writer should heroically reinvent the entire craft is laughable, and also misses the point of most fiction, which is to dump a story from the author's brain to that of the reader, via words.

However, the contents of the ideal writing class would differ depending on the period. Tastes, and even language, change. Something that is perfect now, must almost by definition become imperfect at some other date.

RLSMiller · Jan 1, 2008

Hope To The Horizon said:
Did Orwell use a lot of passive voice in 1984? If so, he must've done it very well, because I never noticed, and I've read that book several times. 1984 is the only 'classic' novel I've ever really enjoyed.

He did it for very, very deliberate purposes, often revising the manuscript just to make it more passive. If anyone's bored and wants a huge essay to read, this explains why.

otterman · Jan 1, 2008

If you have a capacity for learning you can be taught the mechanics of writing and can mimic the work of others. In my view this doesn't make you a writer in the true sense. Something else is required, a depth of observation, an imagination that goes beyond the basic ability to imitate, a need to be heard. Some will argue that we are all just recycling what has been done before, but I don't buy that. To write, you have to put something of yourself into your work. I think this is what people mean when they refer to a writer finding/having a distinct voice. It is an intangible quality which allows a writer to speak to readers in his/her own way. I'm not sure it can be defined but we recognize it when we see it others and we rejoice when when we find it in ourselves.

Thrillride · Jan 1, 2008

James D. Macdonald said:
Can you be taught to write?

Yes.

Next question?

*gasping for air*

Thank you for that!

~Thrill

slcboston · Jan 1, 2008

Yes.

But the better question is: can you be taught to write well?

Also yes.

And the biggest question: can you be taught to write so that others will find you interesting, or clear, or distinctive from everyone else?

... Maybe. But a lot of that is based in talent. Talent cannot be taught. The part of it that is skill can be, like any other art.

I, for example, can draw. Not well, but well enough that my pictures are recognizable. That skill was taught to me in art classes both public and private. I'm reasonably good at watercolors. Can I be taught to paint so that my works rival those in museums (regardless of your opinion of modern art

) ... Nope. Instruction only takes me so far. I can strive to emulate, and I can practice, practice, practice, but a Renoir I will never be no matter what I do. The inherent talent just isn't there.

Stijn Hommes · Jan 1, 2008

IceCreamEmpress said:
The emphasis on passive voice in 1984 was a particular stylistic choice which, as people have already pointed out, was meant to underscore the ways in which the dystopian society Orwell depicted strangled the capacity for direct action.

Also, it wasn't necessarily considered a successful choice at the time. Contemporary reviews of 1984 weren't all raves by any means.

For myself, I think the book succeeds on the basis of its ideas and characterizations, not on the basis of the stylistic choices. Orwell was no fan of passive voice in general, as he made amply clear in "Politics and the English Language."

Now, for a potentially tiresome rant about one of my pet hobby-horses:

George Orwell was born in 1903. My grandparents and great-aunts and great-uncles were all born around that time, and were from roughly the same economic and educational background as he (most from the US and Canada, admittedly, but some of my great-aunts and uncles by marriage were from the UK and Ireland).

None of them spoke the way George Orwell wrote. I've read transcripts of the Nuremberg Trials, which were conducted by folks who were Orwell's contemporaries, and they didn't speak the way Orwell wrote, even in that very formal context.

Now, I'm referring to his authorial voice in his essays here. I do think that Orwell had a really good ear for how people spoke--the dialogue in 1984 is a good example of this, and I think some of the dialogue in Keep the Aspidistra Flying is very realistic as well.

But the only people I've ever heard speaking the way Orwell wrote in his essays were college professors giving lectures and politicians making speeches. I believe that Orwell chose a formal voice for his essays on purpose.

I say this not to nitpick with you, Stijn, but because I think it's both very understandable and very dangerous for people to assume that the everyday life of the past can be directly reconstructed from the formal artifacts of that time.

I do think you're right that people were, in general, more formal in their everyday speech in the first half of the 20th century than they are today--especially people from economically and educationally privileged backgrounds. However, I also think it's true that Orwell purposefully chose a formal voice, rather than an everyday voice, for his essays.

I obviously can't counter all that research. But I did get my main point across anyway. What is considered acceptable changes over time.

David I · Jan 1, 2008

"I can't make you a great dancer. Hell, maybe I can't even make you a good dancer. But I know one thing: if you let me try, I can make you a better dancer."

-- Joe Gideon in All That Jazz

IceCreamEmpress · Jan 1, 2008

Stijn Hommes said:
But I did get my main point across anyway. What is considered acceptable changes over time.

Yes, absolutely.

In The Naked and the Dead, Norman Mailer's soldier characters say "Fug this fugging war" and other sentences that look totally ludicrous to us today. But in 1948, this was considered "daring realism" by many. Nonetheless, no human has ever said "fugging" except as a joke.

Nyna · Jan 1, 2008

TomBerkeley said:
If this is the case, then when a writer, regardless of their skill, has taken an original story as far as they believe the can or should, isn't the story then perfect? What good is a beta? What good is any opinion after that?

No, your story is probably not perfect. It is, perhaps, as perfect as you are capable of making it without listening to outside advice; that is a different animal all together. That's why there are beta readers, so that they can look at your perfect story and tell you that certain passages aren't saying exactly what you think that they are, or that there's a plot hole you could drive a truck through, or that they kept stumbling over the language. And that's why you get critiques, so that people can point out where the language starts falling down, and then you, as the writer, can at least recognize your weak spots and decide whether or not to change them, and how to do so. The only way to create something entirely perfect without the slightest bit of help is to assume that how your work reads to others doesn't matter nearly as much as how it reads to you, at which point it's pretty much, as my mother calls it, mental-masturbation.

Can you be taught to write?

Your Genial Uncle

.

practical experience, FTW

Emerging Anew

Emerging Anew

Falling in the milk

Know what you write...

Blowing in the Wind

Hapless Virago

Swordsman

Word Voyeur

A Suburban Farmer

Pasture-ized

Know what you write...

Hapless Virago