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?
How can you perfect your craft if you don't study it? Being well read is vital to being a good writer. I'm not going to try to perform surgery because I've watched a few episodes on the Discovery Medical channel. I think I would study the profession first!
How can you want to be a writer and not want to read constantly? Its not whether you should or shouldn't be well read…how can you stop yourself?
I write children's lit and I've read this advice from a couple children's writers: "read 100 books like the one you want to write."
Of course, this can be accomplished a lot faster if you're writing picture books than middle grade novels. But I think the gist of the idea is still valid: get out there and take in a nice broad sampling.
I don't keep count and don't sweat it too much, but just try to run with the spirit of that rule and always have something in the cue at the library–maybe a title I hear a lot about but have never read, maybe the next selection for my children's lit book group (having someone else choose the title forces me out of my box a bit) or maybe something by a writer coming to town soon. All these have been good ways for me to pick up something I might not otherwise.
I think the idea that your voice will be overpowered by reading other people's work is a bit loony. Would a musician only compose and never listen to other music?
Alas, as with everything in writing, there's more than one way to do it. So maybe that actually does work for some people. Maybe…
Jim,
It's interesting that you chose no for needing to be well read, and that you didn't consider yourself well read… and yet at a dozen books a year, compared to most of the world, you're probably very well read indeed.
I own a bookstore, and a dozen books a year is quite a bit more than average, and this is among people who do read, and who do like (and buy) books. And when you add in the people who don't read books at all…
Anyway, I find this whole discussion interesting, particularly how people define the idea of well read, whether overtly or incidentally.
Ink,
I rated myself as not well read also, and it depends on my time but 12 books a year seems like a good average for me.
You did notice Jim said he had never read his own genre of urban fantasy before. I think that's cool and can't wait to read his book. I expect it to be totally different from everyone else's, and that excites me.
It is very annoying to pick up a book and see similiar writing, the same words, or plot as another author in the same genre to me.It happens often in urban fantasy.
jimnduncan –
You don’t have to answer this question if you don’t want to: How many books would you say you’ve read in your lifetime? To me, well-read simply means having read a lot of books. Adults often get busy. There have been many years when I haven’t read nearly as many books as I read when I was a teenager, although I read a large number of books this past spring and summer when I suddenly had a lot of free time. When I was in college and graduate school, I mostly read textbooks and reading assignments. If I counted all the books I’ve read in my lifetime, it would add up to a fairly significant number. During years in which I was lucky to get four hours of sleep a night, I didn’t read so much.
Hey, how is possible to talk with you to become (if all think is alright ) my literature agent?
You Tell Me: Is It Possible for Nathan Bransford to Post (about anything, anything at all) and Get Less Than 150 Comments?
*smiles*
Back on topic now. Colleen Lindsay's comment nailed it for me.
Nathan,
Do you think living a full life is as important to becoming a good writer as being well-read?
I’d say it is, or at least the observing of life, as many writers are hermits. I’m thinking that writers often write profoundly after coming out of difficult circumstances in which they might not have had access to large quantities of books.
Of course you have to be well read. Would a horse trainer attempt to train a horse without riding quite a few? No. A writer should be well read, reading the bad stuff along with the good, so they can learn the difference between the two.
I personally have always been a heavy reader, from about 5 years old on. Coming from a small insular Canadian city it was my first glimpse of worlds beyond. It's one of the things that led me to leave home when I was 22 and move to L.A.
I think reading is essential to writers. You don't learn this stuff by just wanting it to happen. No one comes out of the womb with the ability to create beautiful sentences or understanding on how to craft compelling characters. would you want a surgeon operating on you who hadn't studied what he was doing? Medical students are expected to observe other surgeons at work. Then they read about all the things they are expected to know. Then they do it themselves, first on corpses, then under supervised conditions then as real doctors. You want a doctor who tells you, 'no, I never watched anyone do this before, but trust me, I know what I'm doing?'
I personally wouldn't trust a writer who told me they didn't read. I also think you need to read outside your chosen genre, at least occasionally.
To be well read indicates more than a passing familiarity with the classics and great novels and poetry. I notice that writer's who are not well read tend to misuse words and have more limited vocabularies. I'm not talking about long, obscure words, but some of the best words in the language.
Yes. Read. Read. Read. In and out of your genre.
I don't believe that a person can be a writer in any medium that they are not familiar with. If you write books, you should read books. If you write screenplays, you should watch movies. If you write jokes, you should read comics or watch comedians. You should actively participate in the medium you wish to work in. If not, as a participant myself, I really have no interest in your contribution. And guess what? It probably isn't very good.
To me, Faulkner is spot on. Well-read is everything. From good to bad (hey one man’s trash is another’s treasure), and in a variety of genres. Good story telling can come in westerns or fantasy or mystery or __________. Most important, more than reading the material, is the act of analyzing it while you read and when you’re done. For me, it’s a great book when I get so wrapped up, I forget to analyze.
You definitely need to be well-read in the genre you write in, but reading heavily in it while you write? Not a good idea. I don’t worry about plagiarizing, rather being original and keeping my own voice.
Definitely, to be a good writer, you should be well-read. I'm convinced of it. And not just within your genre, but beyond as well. If nothing else, at least you'll be better equipped to know the agents you want representing you, the market your writing best fits in, and become more viable to publishers. And by reading cross-genre, you might find that your own writing might be better suited elsewhere. The trends ebb and flow like the ocean, so being well-read is equivalent to being a well-educated, consumer aware, business savvy author. Key word: author.
Jim Harrison said the same thing as Faulkner, when he said, (paraphrased) "To be a good writer, one should read the whole of Western literature for the past 400 years, and… if you live long enough, the same 400 years of Eastern literature. For if you don't know what passed for good in the past, how can you know what's good today?
I don't think it's important, necessarily, to be well-read to be published, but I do if you want to produce quality literature. There are many books published by people who are obviously ill-read, and if that's all that's important to one, then fine. But, if a writer desires to write well, I don't see how it's possible without following Harrison's and Faulkner's advice. Publication, in and of itself, is no gauge of quality.
I think you have to read all the time and don't just read the books from the last ten years – go back and read as many books as you can from the last 50 years. It's amazing to watch the cycles in literary work especially.
Great Question!!
Nathan,
I have a question for you… (It goes along with this idea in a way.) How do you think blogging has helped your writing? Does anyone feel it's helped in their endevors to become a "good writer"? Just something that occured to me…
Plus, how can you be original if you don't know what's been done before you? I know Ben Bova who edited Analog at one time said he could tell when a writer who sent him a story didn't know the genre — their stories were so cliched he could recognize them in a line or two. He actually came up with a list of the ten most used plots. You'd only avoid them if you were well read in the field.
marilyn-
I don't know if life experience is necessary. I think having a sense of human nature and motivation is helpful, but given the success of some young wildly talented writers I don't know that living a full life is truly necessary. I think you're right that it's more about the observing of life.
JJ-
Blogging got me in the habit of writing quite often, although it's hard to say how much it helped my fiction. I suppose it helped me a bit in finding an authorial voice, but WONDERBAR is pretty different than the blog.
Being well-read helps but there's no perfect equation. Having an MFA doesn't equal success as a writer. But drawing from a depth of well-written literature and having an understanding of that literature helps writers.
What about those gifted writers born with a pen in their hand who can spin off fiction like crazy, with or without being well-read?
The reason why I asked, is because I think it's helped me write my thoughts more quickly and formulate them better in all areas of writing. I see things I may have missed previously.
I would put writers born with pen in hand in the same category as Einstein. A genius, and very, very rare. I'm not sure I've ever actually heard of one. Do you have someone in mind who was that talented right off the bat?
Yes.
That is the short answer.
One reason (among many): How are you going to identify cliche's and/or things that have already been done to death if you don't read?
Particularly the classics within your genre. It is important to see the development of the genre to potentially find a "new branch" that hasn't been followed.
Example: if you are happily writing a sparkly vampire novel while muttering "Twlilight, what?" STOP.
Go read a buttload of vampire fiction and see how you can make yours waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay different.
That is all.
Of course I'm working on becoming a better writer, so it may be making a difference.
As to reading garbage.
If you read garbage and think it is wonderful, you will probably also write garbage.
If you have a modicum of talent, you will read garbage and let it stand as a warning. Like shipwrecks rusting on reefs. "Don't write like this, beware the purple prose pitfall." etc.
That being said, writing (and by extension, reading)garbage may have more commercial value if money's what you want.
Just don't expect people to be reading it in ten years.
I agree with Richard Kriheli…"well read" is tricky. Sometimes, despite my English BA, I feel like a dolt during any "literature" category run on Jeopardy!
I think in addition to being "well-read" (whatever that is) it's important to get out and just see life, stimulate your creativity. I really have no use for writers who think bitching about Bravo's TV lineup passes for literature.
You can't define well-read. Just read and write as much as you can.
I think it was Stephen King who said something like… Reading something written badly is often good because you can learn from them on the "what not to dos". There's a quote in his book "On Writing" on this very subject. Reading both good and bad writing have their perks.
So basically, read everything and anything…
Nathan I'd think you could prove that same point considering all you read…
I think Faulkner had it right. Read anything and everything. Reading is knowledge, and you won't know your wip is original unless you've compared it to other books that are already out there. Great topic!
In a word: yes.
Good writers ARE well-read in that they read a lot, learn about language and style and subject and POV from other authors whom they admire (or don't). One cannot create in a vacuum, or, at least, very rarely with that resonate with the rest of the world who has been influenced by other media you've chosen to ignore.
$0.02
Thanks for answering my question, Nathan. You raise a good point. Maybe, as you say, it’s a "sense of human nature and motivation" that great writers have. Some great writers are solitary creatures, but have a tremendous grasp of how people talk and behave.
P.A. Brown said:
"I would put writers born with pen in hand in the same category as Einstein. A genius, and very, very rare."
However, Einstein studied his field before making his own discoveries. He struggled with math, but understood science.
Newberry winner Linda Sue Parks said, at The 2008 Highlights Foundation Summer Workshop, "You should read at least 100 books in your genre before you start writing a book."
I agree with her, you have to read a lot. But it's not just reading, it's studying someone elses work to improve your own skills.
I read somewhere that Nathan reads 365 books a year. I think he must be….da da daaa…Super Agent!
If you read garbage and think it is wonderful, you will probably also write garbage.
Garbage is subjective.
That being said, writing (and by extension, reading)garbage may have more commercial value if money's what you want. Just don't expect people to be reading it in ten years.
So, your definition of garbage is commercial fiction?
365 books a year? That's amazing, how does he ever do anything else?
I guess it depends on how you define "good writer." One who gets great literary reviews or one who sells a lot of books. I just read that Dan Brown doesn't read a whole lot, but he sure sells a whole lot. Do sales alone make him a good writer? Maybe. Maybe not. Would he be a better writer if he were more well read? Maybe. Maybe not.
I think the same question can be applied to singers (or actors)–do they need to have sung or at least heard all the best before they can be a good singer. Nope. They don't.
So I think the answer to your question is, no. But it wouldn't hurt you to be well-read, unless you're so well-read that you don't have time to write.
I have a feeling if I ever manage to get published, most everyone on this blog will be trashing my writing.
I find it truly discouraging that we insult each other in this manner.
I read, but not the classics. I read for pure entertainment. Many of the books that have been trashed on this sight, I enjoy. Maybe we should step back and think, is it possible as writers that we have forgotten who we were writing for? Do we want to be literary snobs, or do we want to make people love what we do? The best-selling authors (although a few did do some bashing) didn't get there by trashing fellow writers; they got there by connecting with the average citizen. And average people are usually the ones who shoot those sales into best-seller-dom.
I expect to be shot down for my post, but I just couldn't stop my fingers; so I'll apologize now for any offense you may take at my words.
And call me crazy, but I also bought a 6 month old filly, my very first horse ever, riding experience equaled to paying $20 and hour on a dog horse that wouldn't even trot, and broke her myself. We now have six horses, three of which I broke, other three were already trained. My daughter now shows and wins everywhere she goes. So yes, us psycho people think they can do anything without experience, and sometimes we even suceed.
Smack my face.
I broke my filly, not the dog horse.
Smack, smack, smack!
I think that people may have different ideas about what being well-read means. Dan Brown has a college degree and was an English teacher at a private residential academy before becoming a successful novelist, so he must have read many books in college and for his job. Also, I’m pretty sure he does a lot of research for the books he writes, including reading nonfiction sources. In a recent interview, he said that it took him six years to write his latest novel, The Lost Symbol.
Read everything, I like what Faulkner said. Read because you love it, not just to sell books. Read because it's fun to escape and then write because it's fun to escape.
Depends, if you're writing "Non-Fiction" you better be well read! Otherwise you're not an authoritative source. One would hope someone has at least read 'some' books before delving into writing their own. Stylistically one develops as time and experience drives them to new heights. Everyone has influences and no one can remain in a bubble. Having said that one doesn't want to copy the totality of another person's work- however simply being influenced by another is no problem.
Being well read is never a bad thing. It can help in any profession but is necessary for a writer in order to find one's own voice.
Anon 4:54 – I see the words 'garbage' and 'trash' pop up, and like you, I guess they're in reference to the types of books I really enjoy reading. I watch almost no television and very few movies – reading is my favourite form of entertainment and 9 times out of 10 I like a happily ever after. I read for myself, not to impress others.
Don't be ashamed of what you like to read (or write) – just go ahead and enjoy it.
I think it's like any art. It's possible to burst forth with your own amazing style without any knowledge of what's out there, but most of us learn from the masters first.
So do you need to be well-read? No. Should you be? Heck, yes.
It seems that if you went to school, have books or blog , , , then you, well, read.
Who determines said well readness ? I know, not a word.
I like what Natalie 9:13 and Author Guy 10:38 said. It is easy to write what you know and have experienced. The trick is writing it well.
Nathan, I tried to read each one of these ! I am too slow. How do you moderate all this ? ! Busy busy.
Rick had a very interesting question here:
"Were there no good writers until there existed a sufficient library of material for one to be considered well-read?"
I think it's a particularly interesting question if you look at the history of literature, because that history has a sort of inverted pyramid structure. The number of great writers (and writers overall) diminishes as you go back in time (and those two diminishments are connected).
Look back at Western Literature and you'll see Chaucer, the anonymous author of the Gawain story, a few others… very limited. And, yes, part of this is because manuscripts and writing were more perishable then (and some writing has likely been lost), but the real reason is that the number of people with the education and working knowledge of literature (that is, extensive experience with reading and writing) was very limited. There were certainly storytellers, and oral performances that passed on tales through the generations. But writing, and literature, is a little different, a permanent form with its own facets and specific elements, its own rules and internal structures.
And as time passes we see literature growing as education grows, as more people become literate and more people have access to the written stories – that is, more people are reading. Trace the spread of education and literacy and you'll see a connected growth in writing. The writing springs from the reading. It's not that the illiterate don't have stories to tell, or even the natural talent to do so if they had the opportunity. What they don't have is that opportunity, and that opportunity is literacy and education – it's reading.
We now live in the most literate and educated world society in history. Books, blogs, the world wide web in all its digital glory… written language is at our fingertips, ever present, and with it the sort of technologies that make writing and drafting literature easier than it has ever been. Is it any surprise that there's been a massive explosion of writers, of people looking to write their stories? That query numbers are rising? That Nathan's followers keep growing? That there's more competition for each publishing slot?
So, while the need for story, and the propulsion to share it, might be inherent, the ability to write well is almost always going to be tied to the experience of reading, though the depth of that experience will vary from writer to writer.
I've read extensively all my life, and, in the broadest sense, I don't think somebody can write effectively without being a reader.
Having recently begun to write seriously, I find I now read differently. As one reads for pleasure, the mechanics of the writer's craft are transparent. Indeed, this should be one of the marks of a good writer. Technique should not intrude between the story and the reader. But reading, even the same material, as an aspiring writer adds a new dimension. Now one is consumed with the questions and issues that are emerging as one struggles to learn to write one's own project. So, one now reads with one eye on the mechanics. How did *this* writer solve the problems I'm trying to solve?
So, there is reading and there is reading. Both are important.
As to reading in the area one is trying to write in, I am doing this. I'm trying to write YA, and I don't want to be blindsided by elementary ignorances.
However, this is a very individual thing that will vary with circumstances and attitude. My goals in reading YA include to get an overview of the genre, to find writers I can learn from, to find writers whose *mistakes* I can learn from, and to fill in my own areas of ignorance about contemporary teen culture and voice.
That being said, there's a fine line. One must steal good ideas but not get caught doing it. One should adopt elements of other voices withouut losing one's own.
My own grounding in how an older man writes in the first person voice of an adolescent girl is almost entirely Robert Heinlein. However, nobody would ever confuse my Kaitlyn Evans with Podkayne Fries or Holly Jones. But if an astute reader noticed a trace of "family resemblance" I would feel I had succeeded.
I think to be a good author you have to be a good reader but being well read is a distinction that, due to its subjective nature, is hard to define. What I mean by a good reader, on the other hand, is someone that reads across genres and does so with a critical eye. That isn't to say they analyze everything forfeiting enjoyment but that upon reading they can take in what works well for the story/writing as well as what doesn't.
Writing, like any craft, is about learning and how as a writer do we learn? We can take classes of course, but we can also read. Is teaching of the arts, in its essence, not simply a communication of the masters by way of a third party? So why not learn from the masters directly if we can?
@ink: 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."
I say this in complete seriousness — I wanted to write the moment I understood there were books with words in them that told stories. The desire to write happened as soon as I understood what writing was.
I also pretty instantly became a voracious reader — I read ridiculous numbers of book as a kid. My recreational reading fell off in college but at least I got a lot of that "classics" exposure in there.
I don't really think it's possible to be a writer without being a reader.
That said, I also agree with those of you who said that you need to pay attention to your own life and experiences to become a really good writer. I had a sort of profound, life-changing experience when I was 20 – looking at my writing before and after that, you'd think I was two different people.
I hate that I don't read now as much as I should or would like to, and I'm not even sure why. Can I blame the Internet? I have noticed however that I tend to read everything in a much more analytical way – I take it apart to see if I can figure out how it works – or doesn't work.