RE: Your Style In Writing
There are storytellers people who don't read but are very entertaining like in the old days. There's no need to reed piles of books with the result you start copying the words or sentences of someone else. Next to that I agree with @grebmot that writers have their own style and why should that change? If they or the readers are satisfied there's no reason to.
Once a week there's a free "news paper" - village edition - where a guy in dialect writes a column. It might not be perfect but I like to read him once in a while (though I don't speak that dialect). He has his own style, and choice of words and is liked for that. Why should he change his style, write Dutch change his anecdotes into medical articles or write like Rowling (not a great example)?
At times a bit of variety of words make a story more catchy but it depends on what you write. I feel more annoyed about repeating the same sentence 15 times in a different way.
Views can change but a good writer is a good writer and why should that change? Plenty of writers are forced by editors to change their writing style or niche which is not what an author should do. Writing is art, a part of yourself and the artist should not represent an editor. Besides if reading does the trick how come editors and teachers are not among the top 3 of writers?
thanks for the talk.
Well said!
To an extent, I agree to what you have said that writing is an art. If someone's writing is good, then why does he need to change that. Plus, some people might be talented storytellers without being an active readers.
However, let's hypothetically take a random group of people and ask them to write a story.
Now, if we ask this group to read everything they could from poem writers over a year and then ask them to write a story again. Do you think that some of them may have a more poetic touch to the story?
In addition, there is no reason to read for someone who is trying to copy someone else (e.g. Shakespeare). You'd just read Shakespeare's books instead.
tagging @hefestus @grebmot
There's a writing guide I once read. Something 'On Style'. Either way, there's definitely somewhat universally truths regarding composition. Principles of efficiency, basic grammar, show don't tell and being evocative, or just not using too many ingly words. He wasn't runningly speedingly, he just ran. He wasn't running fast either, because the act of running already implies speed. That's redundant.
If you insist on attributing extraordinary speed, why not say: He ran like hell. Or, he was running like a dog trying to catch a car. Actually he was running so fast his already torn shoes started to disintergrate leaving a trail of burning bits and pieces. Or, if you're into ancient movie references: He ran like Harrison Ford on that poster of 'The Fugitive' he used to own as a kid. Or, like the T-1000 in Terminator 2. And so on.
My examples aren't perfect either, I barely speak english, but I think that's the type of stuff that's generally no bueno. But there's exceptions to every rule and someone like H.P. Lovecraft might fire a constant barrage of ten dollar words and every ingly under the sun, but it just works. It might even make the atmosphere. So who knows. I assume a good editor just helps you realize your potential, rather than molding you into something which you're not.
I think there's a lot to talk about here, and I can agree with most of what either of you three said (@wakeupkitty , @ronnie10 and @grebmot). I think reading helps in many different ways, especially, it helps you to think and to consider different manners of exposing an issue. It's unthinkable and unreasonable to expect that someone that reads Shakespeare or Hemingway will end up writing as any of them, still, one can learn a lot from any read. As a friend of mine who is a really admirable teacher of my native language keeps telling me, the important thing is to find your own voice. Once you reach your literary maturity, your writing, no matter the language, subject, length or form, will carry a distinct personality that represents yourself and is often inimitable. That's what we should strive for as we practice our writing, and, for the lucky ones, it will come.
It's weird. That whole idea of developing your own voice and reaching some sort of literary maturity seems great, yet something about it doesn't sit right. Not because I was disagreeing in principle, I've been saying some of that stuff myself, but... How should I describe this? I feel like the detective from 'The Usual Suspects' during that infamous coffee mug scene. The mug doesn't drop though. Instead I keep staring at a bunch of pinned warrants and newspaper articles - edging on a realization that never comes.
I'm not trying to be cryptic either. It's just strange. I'm squirming around in my seat making a lemon face and sucking in air through my teeth. Again, logically speaking it should make perfect sense, but then I feel like not seeing the forest for the trees. Whatever the magic sauce might be, the bulk of aspiring writers seems to be missing the point. Me included. Maybe it's infinitely more complicated, maybe it's hidden in plain sight. Something so obvious acknowledging it makes you feel dumb.
Best example I can give is someone travelling the world looking for glasses that were on top of his head all along. Just that, but in terms of your own voice and the things you want to say. Eric Clapton for that matter, one of the greatest guitarists of all time, supposedly doesn't even know how to read musical notes. I figure that's an indicator of something going on beyond common notions of formalism. Maybe it's the exact opposite of being mature, but doing it with confidence.
Yeah! It confuses me too and I'm not a sucker for educational formalism, nor do I confuse a commercial work with art. Most of what you aim to has not even to do with yourself but with the other's perception of what you do... And that, I feel is valid for most human efforts. Some times you just rry too hard and fail while the guy next to you steps on a piece of dog poo and gets noticed...
Maybe that's just life!
Definitely!
I don't like the idea of just being lucky, but as with everything luck seems to be a factor. Despite of that I guess you could argue luck is when preparation meets opportunity. Don't know if it's learning how to play by ear, knowing the right power chords, or whatever it might be in context of that musical anology. Either or, seems to be more than just mere talent.
Half related. I like playing scrabble with a buddy of mine who keeps crushing me. Here and there I catch myself thinking about luck, but he seems far too consistent for that. He just knows how to use the multipliers effectively, has a decent vocabulary and keeps cock blocking me from using my own words. Which double fucks me because I can't let go of whatever I'm trying to lay down.
Guess writing, or any art in that sense, isn't just having a perfect set of stones but leveraging them effectively. A good vocabulary probably helps though. Eric Clapton isn't a great guitarist because he doesn't know notes, but despite of that. But then that "despite" more than makes up for not knowing notes.
I like the scrabble analogy, and, as you can see, it probably works for life, too, as most of the time you'll have some dumbshit that knows how to play the system blocking your way or getting himself riding on your horse.
I have the feeling that there needs to be the grouping of a critical mass of like-minded people with enough selflessness to support eachother, instead of beating the others down for you to surpass the barrier of average assholes that stand in your way.
And I guess you can find those groups of people in most artforms that saw the rise of their members to eventual stardom. You can see the example in the group of musicians that mingled with Clapton during his ascension, but you can also see it in Hemingway, Picasso or Albert Einstein. In the end, it all goes around who you join forces with to beat the system of mediocrity.
There's some gatekeeping going on for sure. My brother in law works in state media and he argues they prefer someone that's mediocre but pliable over someone amazing but hard to work with. In terms of what constitutes being "hard to work with" I'm inclined to believe that's up to interpretation. It might be anything from speaking your mind, or not playing ball, to just having the wrong vibe. Apparently the private industry is even worse, because it's the media equivalent of feudal Japan masquerading itself to be bohemian. They won't chop your head off, but you won't be working either.
You could say that's a reality in most industries, but man. Meeting them feels a bit like being scanned by a socially opportunistic Terminator calculating your usefulness. They generally don't mean what they say and you'll have to read between the lines constantly. Like one day you exchange numbers and talk about how great it would be to play squash, probably just code for go fuck yourself, but then they turn unreachable and if you're dumb enough to insist they end up feigning diarrhea.
Truth be told, my experience is both limited and provincial, but I doubt it gets any better up the totem pole. Especially once serious money is involved, with a seemingly endless supply of cannon fodder. That said: Heard in terms of traditional publishing your agent basically functions like a pre-filter. Unsolicited manuscripts just go plonk into the trash can and that's that. If anything you're supposed to send an expose and if they're interested from there they'll ask for a text sample. Ideally going some kind of accepted channel featuring a codified song and dance. The correct fonts and whatnot. But that's just hearsay and stuff I've read.
I forgot what I was going to say, but with you mentioning groups of artists helping eachother it's kind of interesting in context of the podcast scene. With comedians they started appearing on eachother's podcast doing cross-promotion. Think Joe Rogan. They're essentially sharing audiences they've been cultivating in that parasocial sense. Like their fans consider them friends and feel obligated to support them. Then those comedians use that platform to promote their specials, club appearances, or other scams. The thing is, a good chunk of them isn't even that funny. It's mediocre people banding together. Like some sort of comedy fascism.
Don't know much about show business, but I guess it's a bit like regular work, in the sense of not making your coworkers look bad. Especially your bosses. They won't give you credit for uncalled-for displays of exceptionalism either way, they'll just ask them why they didn't come up with it (instead of that intern). Probably going back to that idea of playing ball.
I'm demanded to agree 1000% with all you say there, and going up the totem pole is, as they say, a slippery slope. I know, because I had the chance to watch it first hand a number of times.
In my country, the publishing industry is a bit different, because anyone who can sell 500 books can get published. Although portuguese is spoken by some 400 million people, there are local divegences in the language that makes it difficult for a book published in Portugal to be sold in Brazil or Angola. You'll have to be really famous before you reach the wider market. Still, we have our number of mediocre writers selling in the wider market just because they got married into the proper media group...
I still say community bonding does better for people who are independent thinkers that dislike being impregnated by major economic or political interests. If it works for Rogan, it can possibly work for anyone. I actually think he sucks and doesn't run an honest show, just inviting in whoever is hot at the moment and allowing them to spread all kinds of lies and stupid ideas. But, that's just me, and I'm obviously wrong, because he has millions of followers and I have none.
Anyway... Keep on doing your stuff and supporting the ones who support you and you may end up developing critical mass.
Have a great day. Cheers.