In the comments section of yesterday’s post, Mira raised an interesting question: do you really need to be well-read to be a good writer?
William Faulkner also weighed in with a comment (okay, it was John Ochwat reprinting a William Faulkner quote): “Read, read, read. Read everything — trash, classics, good and bad, and see how they do it. Just like a carpenter who works as an apprentice and studies the master. Read! You’ll absorb it. Then write. If it is good, you’ll find out. If it’s not, throw it out the window.”
I’m guessing that most people would agree that one should be at least somewhat to very well-read if you’re going to write.
But how well-read do you need to be? And especially: how well-read in your particular genre do you need to be? Should you be familiar with everything or should you stay away to avoid influences to your writerly voice?
And what’s well-read anyway?
Audrianna says
I think that you have to read to know how to write in a way that is accepted during these times. Even classics all indicate what writing looks like today.
I personally read anything and everything, though I'm more interested in young adult at the moment (which would makes sense, since I am a young adult).
Christina says
RE: classics
Back to my sports analogy — um, a lot of 'classic' writing wouldn't fly today, IMO — in some ways, reading those to learn would be like learning to shoot underhand free throws… sure, if you're Rick Barry-esque, it doesn't matter (and might actually be cool), but if you're an average 75% FT shooter, people would probably look at you funny.
Susan Quinn says
Being well read means immersing yourself in the language in every form – from your genre to the newspaper.
I also think it's necessary, but not sufficient, to be well read to become a good writer.
Speaking of reading well, OUTLIERS (Malcolm Galdwell) posits that 10,000 hours are required to achieve mastery in an area. So, I have to wonder if this could apply to writing.
Neglect, for the moment, whether you have to achieve mastery to get published.
Assuming you start with some modicum of talent, would the 10,000 hours of dedicated effort include all that reading you did over the years, accumulating the collective use of the language in storytelling, OR is it 10,000 hours of writing, and writing alone? My suspicion is that it is the accumulated effort you put into your writing, which includes reading.
Tiger didn't just putt since he was three. He golfed a tremendous amount, read about golfing, studied golfing, talked about golfing, and pretty much immersed himself in the endeavour.
The 10,000 hour number might also be related to why many authors have a novel (or three) in a drawer before they produce one that is publishable.
1000 hours = 1 novel ? (Word math!)
Any thoughts? How many hours of writing before you felt you reached "publishable quality"?
Bane of Anubis says
Whoops – Christina = Bane (that's what happens when you login to your wife's account and forget to change 🙂
Amy says
I read a ton, and I agree that one shouldn't be absorbed only in their genre. For work I read septic tank design manuals and electrician's design suggestions, then I throw in all those night time stories to baby and all kinds of non fiction as well as fiction, travel writing (usually seems to be fictional anyway), and just the plain old newspaper.
Reading is about words…without seeming them splashed around you can't be sure how to use them.
Susan Quinn says
OOps – Malcolm GLADWELL. Sorry, Malcolm.
Karen says
I find it incredibly arrogant when a "writer" is not also a "reader."
Aside from the fact that reading helps us to learn the craft (I've learned a lot more from reading both good and bad books than from any writing class), I can't help wondering why such a person would expect anyone to read their work if they don't bother to read what others have written.
Not every book we read will (or should) be a masterpiece. It helps to read the bad stuff just as much as it does to read the good. I love A Tale of Two Cities and I hate Twilight, but the demographic I'm writing for falls more into the Twilight category, so it's good to know what is already out there and what the wide audience enjoys. Sometimes it'll remain a mystery as to why, but it's still good to know.
AM says
Firefly,
Personally, I have learned that I can decide to approach a book as either a reader or a writer. I now try to first enjoy a book as a reader, and then more times than not, I do reexamine the book as a writer.
I have also come to believe that when a book (fiction or nonfiction) really resonates with me, it is not so much due to the uniqueness of the story that the author told – but how they told (or as ink said, crafted) the story.
However, if I first read a novel as a writer, I rob myself of the magic (or as Myra suggested, the heart) of the book because I am focused on how the novel is constructed, and seeing the ropes and mortar that were used to build the story detracts from the story itself.
I want both the heart and the body.
Suzanne says
I believe it's important to read widely, across genres, non-fiction, periodicals, etc. In other words, not only to be a student of language and various styles of writing, but also to be a student of the world so that you bring a fresh perspective to the page.
Annalee says
I've read a few interviews with writers who boast that they "don't read," and frankly, if I've read any of their stuff, I've never, ever been surprised. It always shows, and not in a good way.
People have already touched on some pretty major challenges facing writers who aren't readers: how do you master a craft you won't study; how do you keep up with what's going on in your field; how do you know you're not re-inventing the wheel, etc.
Another challenge I see is this: at our best, writers are keen observers. Of people, places, cultures–everything. Even (or perhaps especially) fiction writers. When someone doesn't read, they're missing out on a great opportunity to observe.
Personally, I write SF and Fantasy (and YA SF and Fantasy), but I'll read pretty much anything. I certainly try to stay current with what's going on in my genre, but I also read a heck of a lot of non-fiction, mainstream fiction, some mystery, some historical stuff, classics–whatever looks interesting at the moment. I don't just do it because I think it will help my writing, but that does seem to be a nice side-effect.
Tricia J. O'Brien says
I've always read. I always will read. It's part of what makes life enjoyable, interesting, thought-provoking. Writing comes naturally to me, perhaps because reading always did.
terryd says
Put another way: Why would a writer want to remain ignorant?
Vacuum Queen says
For years I had people tell me that I "should write that down!" Apparently I can tell a decent story. I spent time in college giving motivational speeches to high school students and many would come up to me and tell me how much they loved what I said and how hard they laughed, etc. I even had a comedian tell me I should probably make a decent comedienne someday. And sometimes when I send an email, I get a reply telling me they're saving that email because it was so hilarious or that it rang true with them. From email.
Hmmmm…but I don't feel like I write all that well. When you're writing for publication, all sorts of other issues come into play. Grammar (which I can fix if needed, I teach writing), plotting, characterization, irony, action, blah blah blah. I think you need to read other books in order to understand how a good story should flow.
Do you need to read only classics? I don't think so. Perhaps you do need to read within your style, though.
Firefly says
AM and Ink — thanks for responding to my question. I am finding that I have a tendency to read differently now — but if I stop and analyze too much I do lose the magic!
Ashley says
I've found the more I read, the better writer I become. So I say, yes, you *should* be well-read if you want to be a good writer.
Michael Pickett says
Yes. Be well-read. What does well-read mean? I'm not sure. You can never come to a point where you say, "Now that I've read all of the books are even remotely similar to my idea, I can start writing." I think you just have to be reading all the time. At the same time, though, I went through a period where I was reading first, and then writing if I had time after I read. I had to shake myself and say, "You're a writer first. No one is ever going to pay you to read." And yes, I think you should read everything. I think a true writer can gain something from everything he reads. A reader shouldn't put up with a crappy book. If it's not entertaining them, they aren't getting anything out of it. They should move on. A writer though, can learn to recognize why they aren't engaged in a book. That way, they can catch those mistakes in their own work. In conclusion: read, read, read, but only after you've set time aside to write, write, write.
Robert McGuire says
We should be well-read enough to understand HOW a given piece of writing achieves the effects that it does, good, bad or otherwise. (That is, we should "Read Like A Writer" to use the title of a recent Francine Prose book.) We should preferably arrive at this understanding consciously, though I'm sure some portion of it for most writers and all of it for some writers gets absorbed totally unconsciously. Either way, it requires a ton of reading.
Anonymous says
I wonder if the same can be asked of, say, a painter; did the great masters seek out other works to increase the level of their craft?
I don't know if writers need to read voraciously; how many people who are passionate readers choose to write?
It's possible to be a reader who never authors a word. Can you be a writer whose reading is while not nil, doesn't compare to the amount written?
I heard (maybe I even read it) that during one's day, Stephen King recommends four hours of writing, four hours of reading. I don't subscribe to that ratio, not even close. I read widely when younger, now over forty I write constantly, read when it strikes me.
I have no idea what this means in the grand scheme of things. If I'm ever in a position of my opinion being widely sought, I will expound upon this theory in detail, just for the sake of it.
If I languish in oblivion, the point will be proven otherwise.
Rick Daley says
I'm going out on a limb:
No.
Let me explain. First off, I read FREAKONOMICS recently, and if you have also read that then you will quickly grasp the reasoning behind my response. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just using a similar logic. And without empirical data. So please bear with me…
It's about cause and effect. I do not think being well read will cause you to be a good writer. I do think good writers are well-read by nature.
For example, I know many people who are avid listeners of music. (Audiophiles, they call themselves, but I think that sounds creepy.) That does not cause them to be composers, though.
I also know many people who are avid listeners and can play many instruments and fluently sight-read what's in front of them, or learn a song by ear from the radio, but can't write original material.
The composers I know also listen to a lot of music.
I'm pretty sure the good writers I know are all well read (unfortunately we've never had a formal survey). I think that being well-read is a by-product of their innate talent as writers, i.e. it's the talent that drives their desire to read.
Other people that are well-read but are not good writers have different incentives for reading.
AmyB says
Not only do I think it's important to be well read, I think writers need to focus especially on reading NEW books–not stuff that's 30-50 years old. I've found that writers who refuse to read new authors, complaining that nobody writes anything good anymore, write tired, old-fashioned stuff that nobody buys anymore. (Because the people who might actually like that stuff are all re-reading their old books…)
A name will be forthcoming. says
I can't imagine wanting to write if you're not well read. I can't imagine wanting to tell a story if you can't determine if the story is told well. I can't imagine putting oneself through the hell that most of us go through to write if you have no measuring sticks.
I write because I love to read. I write because I have read broadly in nearly every subject and genre I can get my hands on. I write because I'm addicted to words and the images they evoke in my mind. I write because I aspire to achieve what the great authors I've read have and because I know I can do better than the bad authors I have read.
So, yeah. I agree with Faulkner. Read everything.
James says
I think a writer needs to be extremely well read. Writing is partially about putting your butt in the chair and writing, but it's also about putting your butt in the chair and reading. There is so much to be learned by watching it done right.
I'm reminded of the scene in Hardball (with Keanu Reeves) where he takes the kids to a Major League Baseball game. His whole reasoning was to do something nice for them, but to also inspire them. The looks on their faces as they watched the game were priceless and you knew that the inspiration they carried from that game stuck with them for the rest of their lives.
Reading is the same thing to a writer. There's nothing like walking into a bookstore and feeling the spines of a fresh, new book. There's nothing like bringing it home and smelling the new pages as you crack it open for the first time. And nothing, absolutely nothing, can compare to the inspiration that comes from reading a powerfully written book.
Heidi C. Vlach says
I think it's a matter of likelihood. Reading a wide variety of fiction provides guidance in how to put stories together, and makes it much more likely that you'll be successful in any given writing attempt. A person could be a literary genius without ever having read a novel — just don't bet the farm on that.
Mary says
Surely it’s essential for a writer to read, both inside and outside their genre. (I write the genre I most love to read.)
And we choose our influences. I don’t believe we catch them like colds. 🙂
Ink says
Rick,
I'm gonna have to disagree with that – even though I read Freakonomics. 🙂
All those good writers were avid readers before they were writers. You don't want to be a writer without having read something. You read something and say "I want to do this."
And, no, reading a lot will not cause you to be a good reader, but that's not because reading isn't (generally) necessary, but because there are many other factors involved. Creative drive, discipline, talent, etc. You need some of that knowledge, but you need a lot more, too. I'm guessing Malcolm Gladwell would say you need that 10,000 hours of practice, and it also helps to have the opportunity, the support, necessary to apply yourself.
So… pure cause and effect, no. But I'm guessing a study would show a pretty incredible correlation between writing success and reading, and that sort of correlation would strongly suggest that reading is at least one of the causal factors in producing good writing.
And Freakonomics really was good. That whole abortion/crime thing was interesting and spooky…
Ink says
And I seem to be disagreeing with all my friends today. Must be something in the water…
Rhonda says
I would say that if being well-read simply means having read a bunch of classics, then no, you don't need to be well read to be a (published)writer. However, I do think you need to read a lot, and you need to read a mix of what has been and what currently is being published.
Joseph L. Selby says
Not sure if you need to be well-read, but you need to read well. Engage the book, question why the author chose a particular motivation, a particular action, a particular word in that instance. Identify what you think works. Identify what you think doesn't work. Assimilate. Understand. Reading doesn't do you much good if you're reading every fifth word and you're not asking yourself why the book is the way it is. You'll just end up repeating the same thing over and over again.
Anonymous says
They say you have a half million bad words to write before you get to the good ones. If that's true, then I would think you have to read ten million words before you can write good ones.
The more you've read, the easier it will be to write, and the earlier you started reading for pleasure and enjoying it, the better writer you will be for it.
Anonymous says
I believe that if you want to write well, especially in literary fiction but also in other genres, it is essential to educate yourself by reading constantly and widely. We shouldn't be writing solely for ourselves, for our own careers and our own gratification, but to make a contribution to an art form. We as writers are participants in a creative human endeavor that has a long history. The more we read, the more we avail ourselves of the tools of our literary ancestors, and the more we can begin to formulate the nature of our own artistic contributions to literary history.
anassarhenisch says
Writers need to be aware of what's expected in their genre, which means read fairly widely in it and reading books on related topics or in related genres. These days I think it's also good to have a passing familiarity with film media in the genre you're writing in. (I'm talking fiction writers here. Non-fiction writers are something else entirely.) I read
I'm with Faulkner on the need to read a range of books and a range of quality. I've learned a lot personally about How Not To Do Things, I've learned a lot about what doesn't work for me as a reader (and which I assume won't work for me as a writer), and I've learned a lot about how to my fiction better. I don't think more than a couple works of trash or a couple classics are necessary, unless you're deliberately trying to emulate them or you really enjoy the style.
I think a lot of what it take to be a good writer comes from practicing writing. A lot also comes from being able to look at what you read, gauge the quality, see how good stories are told, and then apply those lessons to your own writing. You could read every book in the world, but if you don't practice writing or if you're not aware of how to tell a story, then you won't ever be a good writer. (Also, if you read every book everyone says you should, when will you ever find time to write or work or sleep?)
Reba says
Yes, but as "well-read" is entirely subjective, I don't think it's possible to quantify the meaning. I have noticed that the more I write, the more discerning I've become about what I read, so I wonder if we become less broadly-read as we progress with our own craft and more well-read.
I read across genres, mostly because I am looking for a good story. Non-fiction work can provide that, as well. Once I get past a certain point in a WIP, I find it difficult to read fiction, especially in my genre, but have no problems reading non-fiction, especially if it informs my current project. (I will not hold forth on the fictive nature of historical writing, as better minds than mine have explored that in detail and are still arguing it.) I don't find that reading other work distorts my voice, rather that, once I get to the point where my story is all consuming, I prefer be reading the book I'm writing than one written by someone else.
Lora says
I think in one's genre it would be ideal to have read good examples (or at least successful examples). The more I read in any genre, though, I feel like i learn about pacing, word choice, everything!
litdiva.blogspot.com
Marilyn Peake says
I love and agree with the William Faulkner quote. I think it’s extremely important for a writer to be well-read. Reading won’t make a writer out of someone lacking writing talent, but books are the training and education that allow a person with writing talent to actually become a good writer. It would be very difficult for a person with the innate ability to become a fantastic photographer or movie director to actually become one if they refused to look at more than a few photographs or movies. Becoming a great writer, or even a good writer, takes a lot of hard work. Reading lots of books can also be hard work, especially when a person’s tired. But trying to write a good book without being well-read is taking a shortcut that probably won’t work.
To me, being well-read doesn’t necessarily mean reading while actually writing a book, or even adding reading to a temporary schedule in which a person cuts way back on sleep to hold down a job, raise children and write. To me, though, being well-read means having read and studied many books including those within a writer’s genre, and returning to reading more books as soon as possible.
There are exceptions, of course. Stephenie Meyer has said that she refused to read any vampire books at all because she didn’t want to be influenced by them. I thought her lack of background showed in her TWILIGHT series. But then she’s made millions of dollars on her series, so who am I to judge?
J. R. McLemore says
I think you should be well read in the genre you write in to try to steer clear of reinventing the wheel.
Also, I feel that reading outside of your genre is a great way to see how other writers describe scenes, pace the story, break up chapters, etc. Although, I don't think it necessarily to read more outside of the genre you want to write in.
I like to read good and bad so I can learn what distinguishes the two. Like Stephen King said, even the bad books have a lot to teach! I think well-read is defined differently by everyone, but with so many books out there, I doubt anyone has or will ever read them all. Just read as much as you can. Eventually, you may be considered well-read.
Rick Daley says
Bryan,
I'll agree to disagree. I stand by the non-causal relationship theory. And I'll add a caveat acknowledging that being well-read certainly improves one's writing (which could have been good to begin with).
Does anyone know Steven Levitt? Can we get his expertise here? If Kevin Bacon is six steps from anyone, with all the writers/agents/editors around these parts Levitt has to be like one or two steps at most.
WORD VERIFICATION: forsp. The fourth in a sequence of lisps.
Suzannah-Write It Sideways says
Of course you need to be well-read to be a good writer. I would even agree you need to read a bit of trash along with the treasures, because you need to know what doesn't work, along with what does work, and why.
I made a pact with myself to stop watching tv at night. Instead, I get 3 random books from the library at a time, with the idea that I have to finish at least one of them. Last week I ended up picking 2 that were so poorly written, I couldn't get past the first 20 pages, and the third was well-written, but quite challenging in its language and structure.
Instinctively, I ended up choosing the third to read to the end. Someone who has a desire to write also has an desire to read good literature.
Love your site, by the way. Plenty of great advice. Thanks 🙂
D. G. Hudson says
Yes, I believe you do need to be well-read, in a broad range of topics. A writer should always be aware of what's currently out there as well. I don't think you should only read in the genre or type that you write, as it's simply too restricting.
I define 'well-read' as someone who has read certain classics, the best writers in their genre, some literary works, and some current or new works. I think variety in what you read enriches your life experience, which spills over into your writing.
I also read newsletters from NASA which is a great place to research certain info on sci-fi stories.
Most of my personal choices concentrate in the sci-fi or mystery areas, but I also read the literary novels of Hemingway, biographies of musicians, and notables like Hunter S. Thompson, etc.
genelladegrey says
I'd say one should be well read in the genre they are shooting for as a writer.
🙂
G.
Rick Daley says
Were there no good writers until there existed a sufficient library of material for one to be considered well-read?
Kourtnie McKenzie says
You should be so well-read in your genre that you can point to a dozen books with a friend at any time and say, "I recommend this! And this!" without an eye-blink.
And I personally found studying English in college to be helpful, because while we might not live in the age of classics, there's always something about language to be learned from them.
Reading outside the genre you write for is also beneficial because it shows you what your literature shouldn't be (and hopefully what you're reading is amazing in ways to that genre!)
Donna Gambale says
Great question!
I believe in reading a reasonable amount in your own genre, but you don't want to get overwhelmed by a TBR pile, so I think that it's most important to at least know about what's already out and the upcoming releases. I actually like to read things that are similar (in style or plot) to my novel because it helps me see what works and what doesn't.
Reading outside your genre keeps your writing fresh. A decent background in classics is helpful, but I haven't read Moby Dick and I don't think I'm a worse writer for it.
Whether the book is "literary" or "commercial" (argh I hate those labels!), it's worthwhile. You learn from the good, the bad, and the ugly. Just read!
jimnduncan says
Have to say I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I can certainly see the point that Colleen Lindsay made, in that if you aren't very familiar with the kind of story you are writing, folks are going to know. It makes perfect sense. I don't however agree that you must be well read to be a good writer. I definitely doesn't hurt, and generally will only help to improve one's writing. Reading also is a great provider of inspiration and motivation. Reading a really compelling, well written story always gets my juices flowing to write.
However, some folks I believe have a greater knack for good storytelling. It's just in their blood. Personally, I'm not well read. I read maybe a dozen books a year. Much of this is more a time factor than anything else, but I also am not a fast reader. I read mostly fantasy and thrillers. The book I wrote, which Nathan is now representing, began as a thriller, albeit with some paranormal elements in it. Little did I know, that what I was writing happened to fall within the purview of urban fantasy. This is not a genre I've really read at all. Consequently, my story offers something a bit different (at least I hope it does) compared to the genre as a whole. So, I did something well without actually be well read at all. I wrote the story I wanted, and that's where it happened to fall. This of course just reinforces that addage about just writing what compels you and don't worry so much about what genre you're writing for.
Marilyn Peake says
Rick Daley asked:
"Were there no good writers until there existed a sufficient library of material for one to be considered well-read?"
There were certainly nowhere near as many great writers until that sufficient library of material. We’ve come a long way since Beowulf.
Bane of Anubis says
Nope, no good writers, but there were some guys who could make some pretty cool pictures on cave walls.
Dawn Herring says
I read a mix of memoir and fiction since those are the genres of my primary book projects. I find reading best sellers in these genres give me an inside view of what works. I appreciate the genre so much more when I can see all the different approaches there are to the basic framework of fiction and memoir.
I don't have issue with reading the same genre when I'm writing because of the benefits.
I often read books recommended by others. When I do, I end up reading books that I may not otherwise read. Of course there is only so much time in a day to read, so I choose carefully.
Anonymous says
Way to go Jim Duncan!!!
I only read a few books a year, and I certainly hope I don't have to be similar to all of the other books of my genre to be good. I always thought agents were looking for uniqueness.
What does 'well read' mean anyway?
J.J. Bennett says
The key phrase in that statement is "good writer". To be good at anything you must practice and do something often. Reading and writing go hand in hand. It's like saying,"Do I need to know my A,B,C's to write?" Of course you do, otherwise people won't understand a bit of it.
J.J. Bennett says
I'm seeing a great childrens book out of this post today… Interesting…
anniegirl1138 says
You should read what interests you and write about what intrigues you and not worry so much about what anyone might think.