|
Well it's not like you could really test that empirically. I can't think of any ethical / realistic way to control what kind of reading people are exposed to; you'd basically have to lock up a few people from birth, give them different things to read, ensure that they have the exact same base level of writing / reading competence, and then make them write, after which point, as you said, you couldn't objectively measure the quality of that writing anyway. That being said, on a basic level, reading alone isn't going to make you a good writer. Writing is the other half of the equation, and if you aren't writing consistently, no amount of reading is going to fill that gap. Reading helps you internalize things that everyone takes for granted, like grammar, pacing, rhythm, etc. But think of it like this: the "language" and style of different genres can be very different, before we even start to get into individual authors' styles. If you went your whole life reading nothing but high fantasy novels, and you wrote every day, you could probably write a good high fantasy novel, but it's probably going to be derivative. Likewise for any other genre. The purpose of broader reading is that you are exposed to different perspectives, styles, point of views, vocabularies, etc. I'm sure everyone has come across an author or two that just makes you stop and go "wow, I didn't know you could do that with the written word." In a vacuum, someone that reads Joyce and Tolkien is going to have a bigger toolbox than someone that just reads one or the other. Real life doesn't work like a science experiment, but I'd go out on a limb to say that gist is still the same.
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
While I agree that this isn't ready to be published, there is a definite improvement between the first draft and the current one. I have to disagree with the advice to write a much longer piece, though. I think there is a lot to be said for learning how to write a short story before working on something longer. Someone that writes 20 1,000 word stories is probably going to end up with a better structural understanding of storytelling than someone that just sits down and dumps 20k words on a page, assuming they aren't just writing vignettes or microfiction. Not to say that writing a longer piece isn't going to teach you anything. Practice is practice either way, and 20k words in any form is going to lead to improvement. Voice, pacing, and a better grasp on grammar / syntax is going to come with time regardless of what you write. A lot of people chip away at a novel while writing shorter stuff anyway, but I think there's something to be said for honing your ability to actually tell a good, coherent story in a thousand words or so before you sit down and try to write the next Great American Novel. Kind of a "run a 5k before you sign up for a marathon" type thing, and even though some people are exceptions, I'd wager it's valid advice for most people. If you feel like writing something longer then by all means go for it, but you shouldn't feel like you have to at this stage. There's not a whole lot to say about this piece that hasn't been said already, but I think your decision to set it aside and write something else is definitely the way to go at this juncture. Grizzled Patriarch fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 20:12
|
|