Guys playing pickup basketball on the playground don’t usually think they can step in and compete in the NBA.
Someone who doesn’t own a guitar doesn’t usually think he can become the next Jimi Hendrix.
Someone who can’t draw doesn’t usually think they’re the next Georgia O’Keefe.
Why is it so hard for us to tell if we’re good writers or not?
Just about every writer at some point has struggled with the Am I Crazies, not really knowing if they have the chops or the ability to make their writing stand out.
And, on the flipside, it sure seems like the majority of people in the world think they can write a book. And not only write a book, but write it as well as a published author. And not only just as well as a published author, but just as well as bestselling published authors who are among the elite in terms of building an audience and having their work catch on with readers. There are lots of people out there who think it’s easy, think they could do it, and all but a handful are wrong.
What is it about writing that makes people put on the blinders and fail to recognize their limitations and makes the talented unable to recognize their own goodness?
A friend of mine started his acting classes by giving the students this bit of wisdom: Just because you can walk, does not mean you know how to walk across a stage.
I think the same is true for writing. People are taught the act of writing. We use it in our daily lives. They mistakenly believe this means they can write fiction, as if it differs not at all from sending an email.
"Why is it so hard to tell if our writing is good?"
Because everyone in the business gets rejected on all fronts (by agents, editors, publicity departments at pubs, buyers for the big box stores, and if you can survive all that, by the reading public) so yeah, it's pretty hard to tell if you're any good because so many effing people are telling you you suck.
Likewise, the truly untalented know everyone gets rejected, so they just figure they ARE one of the elite, and THEIR rejection doesn't mean anything.
I recently had an agent tell me my book was sellable but she still didn't want to rep it. Does that ms suck? I don't have a clue. How could I?
Nathan, I really admire your position on "books today." I get so weary of the Twilight trash talk. I'm more of an Eric Northman fan than an Edward Cullen fan. But hell's bells, I made it through Twilight. And I don't make it through a lot of books (Dubliners not included, great book). Meyer created something vivid and relate-able and surprisingly pure. I mean we can hate Kobe or T.O. or Tiger Woods, but they're still darn good at what they do. Gotta respect that.
I don't force myself to read books I don't enjoy. So most books I read are great, at least from my point of view. Life's too short to read books you don't like, much less rant about them.
Every book written is individualized by the author and his intepretataion of the subject he is writing about. His hard work can be completely rejected or read by those that enjoy his words, but by far not everyone will like his work and it would be a long stretch to think so. He just keeps plugging along hoping to have an audience and acceptance. Good or bad? Not even the experts can always be right! This should not be a deterrent to completing your writing and you should always think your work will be the best ever.
Interesting question.
I agree with a lot of what's already been said.
I'd add that because we can't see our own blind spots, and being human our defenses tend to go up when/if someone tries to point them out to us, (no matter how well we develop that thick skin we're all still softies inside) it's inevitable that we will miss some of our own opportunities to learn/develop/enhance/grow some aspect of ourselves.
We filter every piece of information we hear, see, receive, and the only filters we have are the ones conditionally fixed in our cultural,value systems.
Conversely, our defenses can play tricks on us, make us believe that people's positive reactions are just a result of them not wanting to be unkind, or hurtful, so maybe we should discount what they are saying and stick with our own inner critic, who is way harder to beat than any external one.
Our blind spots exist for a reason. I personally think it takes a lifetime of willingness to learn about oneself, and slowly chip away at the automatic defenses we've put in place over the years to achieve a sense of balance in anything we do in life.
But the journey is worth it.
A narrative of several thousands words is a complex construction considering every last glyph contains a freight train of signs, signals, signifiers, and signfied significances: semiotics. Many writer choices are from acquired habits, many are conscious decisions, many are nonconscious decisions.
Given an understanding what a writer intends to signify and what's actually signified to readers is not as subjective as might be realized. Taste aside, most, if not all, readers have universal expecations from a narrative. Meeting those expectations is where writers often nonconsciously give short shrift.
I'm gonna jump on board with a lot of what others are saying…I think it's totally subjective. Writing is a personal thing and I think many people wrap their identity up in whether their writing is good or bad. It takes a tough skin to listen to "corrective" criticism about something that one may think "hung the moon." Not everyone is ready to hear it, nor do they want to hear–ever. Those are the ones who will be forever lost in the tunnels of "I'm a good writer, I'm a good writer…" and yes, while they may be a good writer, to make one a better writer, I guess you have to throw on the lizard skin and listen.
This is a good topic and so many aspects apply.
It's because people think becoming a Best Selling Author is like winning the lottery. Any book has just as much of a chance as any other. They don't see the structure of what distinguishes a best-selling book from a book rejected by the editors. They think if they just keep looking, they will find an editor or agent who will think their work is the next 'Of Mice and Men' or 'War of the Worlds'.
Regardless of the genre, our writing mirrors life (albeit at times the fantasy we would like life to be), and, like life, we were much smarter when we were younger and less experienced.
When fourteen, we knew we could conquer the world with little to no effort – it was ours for the taking. Our parents were some of the least knowledgeable people we knew. Yet, over the years, they somehow became much more intelligent than we ever gave them credit for. And that awareness seemed to coincide with our recognizing life is hard work.
Liken the agent to a literary parent. The agent is experienced, schooled, and skilled in recognizing and encouraging talent and growth in a writer. The agents who aren’t fail as miserably as an untalented or unskilled writer. But also, like a parent, the agent has the ability through experience to recognize whether a writer can become Jules Verne.
Not all children can grow up to be a doctor. Not all writers can grow to be successful (read).
Are there books ‘some’ say shouldn’t be on the bookshelves? Of course. But someone believed in it or it wouldn’t be there.
I suspect we sometimes are so eager to find fault in a book, so eager to satisfy our own belief in ourselves we overlook the writing. I could read an entire novel written in single syllable words if the message, the intertwining of those words, and the passion is so great, so compelling, it draws me into the writer’s tale. I don’t care if the author didn’t know a comma was supposed to go here or there. I don’t care if ellipses were misused. I care whether the author swept me away for a few hours and we shared a journey.
I don’t buy a book to review or critique it. I buy it to enjoy the story.
Sometimes that doesn’t happen, and the book gets set aside. Is this the writer’s fault? Not necessarily. I think it is more my experiences and expectations didn’t mesh with that particular author’s. It doesn’t mean the author is terrible, or I am a dolt.
Why do so many of us think we can write? Simple. Every one of us has a story to tell – an event that helped shape us we want to share, even if we place the event in a nonexistent world with nonexistent characters. And we have been taught writing is the way to convey those stories. But like the children we were, we don’t know yet how to exist in the literary world on our own, though we believe we do.
The more we write, the more we learn we have much to learn. The more we are rejected, the more we should be seeking to discover why, and improve/hone our craft to overcome those rejections in the process.
Consider how two speakers may speak for fifteen minutes on the same subject. For one, the fifteen minutes are endless hours we can’t be rid of too soon. But the other, we wish the time hadn’t flown by so quickly. Writing isn’t any different.
Those who never comprehend writing is more than the words, that it is passion and conveying that passion through a finely crafted tale we want to hear, will always be frustrated and disappointed. The writer who does understand it, and strives to improve, who has the desire, the longing to compel his or her audience of one to remain in the chair, unable to put the book down, stands a much greater chance of winning the prize… Published.
A while back, I went to a seminar held by a show runner (head writer) for ROSANNE. The first thing she did was ask how many of us had actually written anything. Two of us – out of 35 – raised our hands. When she asked what the others were waiting for, a lady said she knew she could write – she just was waiting for someone to buy her pitch before she went "to all that trouble." Yeah, that happened.
Because success (not necessarily skill, but success) tends to be measured in sales. Even if the writing isn't the best, if it sells oodles, that's what matters.
And besides, after looking at your own work forever and ever, you end up seeing all the faults, all the goofs, and eventually get to a place where you're not so jazzed about it anymore, even if it truly is great.
Because a writer's skill is determined by how he translates the ideas in his head into words on a page. Someone could be walking around with the greatest literary masterpiece in the history of humanity in their head, but if they can't put the words on the page to evoke that masterpiece in the mind of the reader, it is useless.
I fear that I can't see the gaps in my writing that are preventing the reader from grasping the idea I have in my head. I guess that fear is what prevents me from being that writer who thinks he is the next Shakespeare, but keeps me hoping that I can be the next happy midlister.
For the record, I meant INTERPRET not INTERRUPT. Oh no!
They think it's like talking, only on paper. And man, can they talk.
Because it's us.
If we write from our deepest selves, that's what's on the page. It's scary and wonderful, but we can only be as confident in our words as we are with ourselves.
Ignorance is what makes seemingly everyone think they can write a book and have it be as good as a best seller. They simply don't know the process of writing a book or getting it published and the amount of work that goes into such an effort.
Conversely, it's knowledge that makes the talented people unable to recognize their talents. They know the difficulty there can be when writing a book and getting it published. It makes them doubt if they can actually do it.
Our minds laid bare. How frightening to accept the truth that the result is lacking.
There are three types of writers:
1. Those who know that writing is a craft and takes years to learn, yet are willing to put in the time and effort.
2. Those who have raw talent and want to have written, yet aren't willing to expend the effort to do the real work.
3. Those who think writing is self-expression, when it's really communication. These people slap some stream of consciousness on a piece of paper and think they're James Joyce. Maybe they express some universal truth that's new to them, and they think it's new to the world–because they're so busy listening to the ideas in their own head that they never listen to anyone else's. These are the real crazies. People who are working hard to learn their craft but haven't mastered it yet are students.
Medical students learn by starting with a cadaver–they can't be trusted with live people. A student writer's work is supposed to suck. The fact that you realize it sucks shows you have promise. Keep at it. You'll learn.
Because it is just to hard to be objective.
I think my writing is good, but more than once I've thought,
What if this is cr$^? And I just don't know it.
Writing is so personal. If you're criticized, it's hard to separate it from being an attack on you, the individual — not just on the writing.
I think we writers can be such snobs.
If you want to be a star athlete you find something you do decently then you practice like mad.
If you want to be a painter… the same.
If you want to be an accountant you submerge yourself in numbers for many years. You may never reemerge.
But we writers think that we are either born with this great ability or not. Just because my work sucks today, does not mean it will still suck ten years from now if I love it and I'm humble enough to keep on working at it.
Yes we get to close to a story and think it magnificent. But I've never had it fail that I put a story aside for a year and keep working on my writing, then come back and I can SEE where and why it's not working.
The real test of an author is time. Just like any other profession or art. You simply have to put in the time consistently over long years, and still love it.
Then to shine you must find an area you are good at. I would stink as a cook book writer!
Because its so hard to see our work as a whole. We can't step back and look at it or take it in 5 seconds, or even 5 minutes. We must read and read and read it for hours, and during those hours we go through bump into all sorts of different moods and opinions (this rocks! this sucks. and everything in between.)
when we're done, we're left wondering what we really think.
Two years ago a friend and I decided to get serious about our writing hobby and co-author a book. Guess what we found- it is way harder to write a book that is worth reading than we had ever realized. We're still working on it!
It's hard to tell. Sometimes people are great authors, and they know that. Mostly though, they're horrible authors who think they're great. My best friend thinks she's a good author, but she doesn't know the difference between 'will' and 'well' no matter how many times I've pointed it out.
The good authors are the ones who may say, 'yeah, I like how I wrote this, but I know this isn't ready yet' and will rewrite their book if they're told they may need to. I think I'm a pretty good author, but I'm not going to write a book, not even look at it, and yell at someone who says it's bad. I thought my book was okay after the 3rd draft, but I looked at it again, and started editing it. I still know I'm not an amazing author, that's why I'm going to keep trying and keep learning.
Some people think they're horrible, but can write a short story that I think is great. One of my other best friends thinks she's a horrible author, and while she isn't the best and has a lot to learn, I know she isn't giving herself enough credit.
In general, I think the people who look at a first copy of their work and are willing to change it, even completely rewrite it, are the best ones. The ones who look at it and tell everyone it's still amazing or just say 'it's horrible' and hit delete aren't going to get very far.
the best authors, in my point of view, can look at something they've written and say 'I need to rewrite it.' They aren't the ones who slap someone for calling the first draft 'not great but okay' or the ones who say 'this is horrible' and hit delete without even bothering to figure out why it's bad.
Why is this post making me feel nervous?
I can tell I don't sing like Celin Dion. I can tell I don't play guitar like Stevie Ray Vaughn. I didn't create the stuff they do. It isn't coming from my soul. I am just imitating them. So I can be objective about it.
If, however, what I am doing originates with me, comes out of me, it is supremely valuable to ME. And in my passion for it, I can't see why it wouldn't be valuable to everyone. Hence my inability to see my dreck writing as anything but brilliance. As Jon VanZile said above, "There's no way to keep score."
I remember reading a comment from James Michener that people were always coming up to him with "a great idea for your next novel." He would respond by saying, "Great, now write 300,000 words about that and get back to me."
That's a bit too long for a first novel these days, but I've got my 130,000 words. Now what? I want to write the next one, but if I'm deluding myself I'll have to live with the guilt of ignoring my family all those hours and having nothing to show for it.
Mostly, I write because I have to. There's a universe in my head that wants to get out.
I re-write because I love my little universe and I want to be able to communicate it in a way that will make other people fall in love with it too. (Of course, I wouldn't mind being the next author to become a billionaire either.)
The crazies tend to strike when I look up from my keyboard and see how the house has deteriorated in my mental absence and remember that I was supposed to pick the kids up from school ten minutes ago. If there were no guilt associated with spending endless hours in my own imaginary world I would never care if I were any good.
Nathan – Regarding Best-Selling Trash
Yes, that picture is me cracking the cover of "Breaking Dawn" by Stephanie Meyer which I enjoyed immensely even though I predicted all the major plot points, lining them out for my uninterested husband long before the book was published.
Likewise, I predicted much of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" long before it was published. As soon as I read in the first book that Ron had five older brothers and one sister, a year younger, I thought it was obvious that the only reason the writer would give the Weasleys a daughter was so Harry could really become part of their family in the end.
Good popular books do follow predictable formulas. That doesn't make them trash. (Though my aforementioned husband did have fun doing "Glower" shots while we read the Twilight series aloud to each other.) My mother-in-law calls her romance novels "stupid books" but reads three a week. They're so formulaic she often can't even tell if she's read one before until she's more than half way through. Some of them have been best-sellers, though not the same ones I preferred.
Writing a publishable book is not that subjective an art. There is a lot more skill and science involved than people seem to think. Big publishers conduct research to tell them what kinds of books will sell. While Stephanie Meyer may have had a dream and wrote a book in three months, before that she went to college and learned the skills needed to write well in general. Her work engaged the reader and met the demands of the market. What successful professionals call a gut instinct for what sells is really strong innate math skills combined with their up to date knowledge and experience in the field, giving them an answer they didn't have to work hard to come up with.
Writing is a passion, or a curse, but publishing is a business. I believe when a writer makes it her business to improve her product she increases her chances of finding a place in the market. After all, even if she's not a best-seller, someone has to keep writing those stupid books and I've not put one in the trash. They all get passed around until the covers wear off (or longer) or they get dropped in a bubble bath. You never see those paperbacks on the clearance table at Borders with the extra two-billion hard-cover copies of the latest political biography no one actually read.
I'd rather write trash that people read than literature that sits on the shelf. In short, I'm with you, reading the best-sellers looking for what worked.
It seems to me that if you are a 'good' writer, this will have become apparent at a young age. You will have read and written voraciously, won all the prizes at school and then gone on to win further in wider arenas. If you are a 'good writer' you were most likely 'outed' in this way at a young age.
It seems to me that if you are a 'good' writer, this will have become apparent at a young age. You will have read and written voraciously, won all the prizes at school and then gone on to win further in wider arenas. If you are a 'good writer' you were most likely 'outed' in this way at a young age.
I get lost in self-doubt on this one all of the time. I read…read and read. I read the authors who I feel have a strong voice, and ask myself why their voice is strong. I think if any of us were accurate self-critics, there would be far more solid writing in the world. That said, I submit to lit mags often, as well as newspapers. I've been published a few times, which is a great indicator I'm sure. I think that building a resume in that manner certainly makes one a better writer in the long run, and better equipped to approach a publisher or agent when the time comes.