Cue LeVar Burton
A couple of years back, I was a devotee of a semiregular writing group I found on Craigslist. It was, for the most part, a group of pretty cool people, some of whom were Seriously Into Writing, some of whom were just keeping journals. I finally had to stop going, though - in part because real life demands got in the way, in part because (okay, I'll admit it) I'd briefly dated someone in the group and wanted to avoid awkwardness, but mostly because of the attitude of some of those who claimed to be Seriously Into Writing. I keep running into people like this, and it completely blows my mind - there are folks out there who exhibit an unfortunate and annoying tendency that I can't quite get past - namely, they don't read books. And there's not just one or two. These folks are legion.
This concept is so far from my sphere of philosophy that I just can't come up with any logical explanation for it. I can't conjure any plane of reality that meshes with mine wherein someone with a genuine interest in being a writer that anybody else would want to read would not also have a genuine interest in reading others' work.
These people want to be writers - usually, fiction writers. They claim to love the written word. But they don't consume any, and it's not that they really love books but can't find time to read, it's that they've just never gotten excited about them. (Believe me, if you love the written word enough, you make time to read. I read on my commute - okay, I read on my commute about half the time, when I'm not watching Star Trek reruns on my ipod - and for 45 minutes or so before I go to sleep.)
I find it difficult to understand people in general who categorically don't read books, although I can certainly condone it if words just don't do it for them. Fine. Lots of things don't do it for me - the NFL, orgies, knitting, and political canvassing, to name a few - and I lead a pretty full life anyway. I even know some people who want to be newspaper reporters who don't read books, but read the Times and half a dozen other papers every day.
But to want to write stories and not spend every possible second (that is, every possible second not spent producing) devouring all the books you can get your hands on? It's like wanting to be a chef but only eating peanut butter sandwiches. It's like wanting to be a fashion designer but shopping at the Gap. It would be like me trying out to be a sportscaster even though I can't make myself sit through a full NFL game. I can't think of a single argument that could possibly begin defend this point of view.
I think I have something to learn from anybody who's ever been published, because already they're a step ahead of me. I pay attention to the rhythm of the words, the devices that drive the plot forward, what I think works and doesn't work, what I would have done differently. Every book I read - even the ones I don't like - lends that much more to my understanding of what goes into good prose. I think I get a little bit better every time I pick up a new book.
Sometimes, someone in my old writing group would share something and one of us would say, "what you're working on kind of reminds me of a book I read by X." A reader, or someone who is at least not averse to the concept of reading, will either have read the book (or one by the author), or ask about the book and write down the title. The ones who don't read will shrug it off. They're usually also the ones who get argumentative if they're at all criticized. These things go together for some reason - I think it's that they honestly feel their writing can't be improved by outside forces, which strikes me as unbelievably arrogant.
For that matter, if you don't want to learn from others, why on earth would you want to join a writing group? So everyone else can prostrate themselves at the feet of your clearly pristine and untaintable skills?
Also, if you're not interested in improving yourself, if you really think you're doing the very best you or anybody else can do, then why are you still doing what you're doing?
It bodes well that so far, in my writing class, most people have been furiously taking notes whenever an author is mentioned. Most of us do the reading assignments and we're not afraid to talk about them. Most of us are not afraid to learn something from the writers we read, or even from each other.
Honestly, in the big picture? I kinda suck. Someday I'd like to suck less. Someday after that I'd like to not suck. Someday after that I'd like to be good enough to produce books that people buy.
I'm always growing. I'm always learning. Therefore, I am always reading.
This concept is so far from my sphere of philosophy that I just can't come up with any logical explanation for it. I can't conjure any plane of reality that meshes with mine wherein someone with a genuine interest in being a writer that anybody else would want to read would not also have a genuine interest in reading others' work.
These people want to be writers - usually, fiction writers. They claim to love the written word. But they don't consume any, and it's not that they really love books but can't find time to read, it's that they've just never gotten excited about them. (Believe me, if you love the written word enough, you make time to read. I read on my commute - okay, I read on my commute about half the time, when I'm not watching Star Trek reruns on my ipod - and for 45 minutes or so before I go to sleep.)
I find it difficult to understand people in general who categorically don't read books, although I can certainly condone it if words just don't do it for them. Fine. Lots of things don't do it for me - the NFL, orgies, knitting, and political canvassing, to name a few - and I lead a pretty full life anyway. I even know some people who want to be newspaper reporters who don't read books, but read the Times and half a dozen other papers every day.
But to want to write stories and not spend every possible second (that is, every possible second not spent producing) devouring all the books you can get your hands on? It's like wanting to be a chef but only eating peanut butter sandwiches. It's like wanting to be a fashion designer but shopping at the Gap. It would be like me trying out to be a sportscaster even though I can't make myself sit through a full NFL game. I can't think of a single argument that could possibly begin defend this point of view.
I think I have something to learn from anybody who's ever been published, because already they're a step ahead of me. I pay attention to the rhythm of the words, the devices that drive the plot forward, what I think works and doesn't work, what I would have done differently. Every book I read - even the ones I don't like - lends that much more to my understanding of what goes into good prose. I think I get a little bit better every time I pick up a new book.
Sometimes, someone in my old writing group would share something and one of us would say, "what you're working on kind of reminds me of a book I read by X." A reader, or someone who is at least not averse to the concept of reading, will either have read the book (or one by the author), or ask about the book and write down the title. The ones who don't read will shrug it off. They're usually also the ones who get argumentative if they're at all criticized. These things go together for some reason - I think it's that they honestly feel their writing can't be improved by outside forces, which strikes me as unbelievably arrogant.
For that matter, if you don't want to learn from others, why on earth would you want to join a writing group? So everyone else can prostrate themselves at the feet of your clearly pristine and untaintable skills?
Also, if you're not interested in improving yourself, if you really think you're doing the very best you or anybody else can do, then why are you still doing what you're doing?
It bodes well that so far, in my writing class, most people have been furiously taking notes whenever an author is mentioned. Most of us do the reading assignments and we're not afraid to talk about them. Most of us are not afraid to learn something from the writers we read, or even from each other.
Honestly, in the big picture? I kinda suck. Someday I'd like to suck less. Someday after that I'd like to not suck. Someday after that I'd like to be good enough to produce books that people buy.
I'm always growing. I'm always learning. Therefore, I am always reading.
1 Comments:
Yeah, I hear you on this one. I also just don't get people that wnat to be writers that aren't readers. Hell, I really don't get people that aren't readers in general. Maybe it's a mental blindspot on my part, since I am a complete book junkie. Who knows?
Post a Comment
<< Home