I appreciate your jaundiced view on ebooks. But think of the trees. (Neatly sidestepping the environmental and carbon footprints of devices, and the tax payment proclivities of some ebook providers.) There will always be a romance about 'real' books - we were the generation where tech just meant technical college. Ebooks are great for travelling and for peeps who need to increase the text size, and for people who enjoy light-induced insomnia. Now, about my books...
I think the idea that you have to read a lot to write is based on three concepts:
1. It’s assumed that anyone who writes well can only write well because they read a lot.
Maybe some people are just extra talented and their reading/good writing ratio is lower than for others?
2. It can be useful to know what others have said on certain topics – the kind of topics that have a public dialogue, such as philosophy.
If you’re writing about your weekend – and that could be excellent writing – there is no public dialogue.
3. Soft gatekeeping.
There are no qualifications for writing, really. So writers feel insecure if they feel their position isn’t protected. Proving you’ve read avidly is how you get through the gate.
So…
The problem with the third concept is simple; it’s just people feeling insecure. And there’s more ugly and boring than insecure people. I suggest you work on that rather than the gatekeeping job.
The other two ideas mask a problem.
In order to write well, you first and foremost have to _think well_. It doesn’t matter how many books you’ve read if you can’t analyse the ideas, break them down to principles and rebuild new ideas from them.
But you can build new ideas without much reading. Sure, people will scoff and go “Camus said it first!”
My response is usually something like, “Good for Camus; I’m saying it now. What are your thoughts?”
If I were giving advice on how to write well, sure, I’d suggest reading a lot. But thinking more.
If you write well, you write well (and you do, Sarah). How much you read is kind of moot now.
I get it. It's all very logical. And it's quite something that you know people who know who Camus is. I did not, so by reading this comment, I've acquired knowledge. Thank you.
Yeah, I know, sorry, I should have said, "I agree". See, I need to read more—and therefore convey my position better! Please do continue to share your thoughts. Even more Camus quotes stolen by Ross.
I appreciate your jaundiced view on ebooks. But think of the trees. (Neatly sidestepping the environmental and carbon footprints of devices, and the tax payment proclivities of some ebook providers.) There will always be a romance about 'real' books - we were the generation where tech just meant technical college. Ebooks are great for travelling and for peeps who need to increase the text size, and for people who enjoy light-induced insomnia. Now, about my books...
What do you mean, “we were the generation”?!
And that's how a writer ensures their audience are paying attention.
yes I said yes I will Yes.
I mean, seriously, are you really a writer if you are not quoting Ulysses and also, the most quoted of the quotes?
I'm so far out the loop I don't know what the most quoted of the quotes is, Gérard.
I think the idea that you have to read a lot to write is based on three concepts:
1. It’s assumed that anyone who writes well can only write well because they read a lot.
Maybe some people are just extra talented and their reading/good writing ratio is lower than for others?
2. It can be useful to know what others have said on certain topics – the kind of topics that have a public dialogue, such as philosophy.
If you’re writing about your weekend – and that could be excellent writing – there is no public dialogue.
3. Soft gatekeeping.
There are no qualifications for writing, really. So writers feel insecure if they feel their position isn’t protected. Proving you’ve read avidly is how you get through the gate.
So…
The problem with the third concept is simple; it’s just people feeling insecure. And there’s more ugly and boring than insecure people. I suggest you work on that rather than the gatekeeping job.
The other two ideas mask a problem.
In order to write well, you first and foremost have to _think well_. It doesn’t matter how many books you’ve read if you can’t analyse the ideas, break them down to principles and rebuild new ideas from them.
But you can build new ideas without much reading. Sure, people will scoff and go “Camus said it first!”
My response is usually something like, “Good for Camus; I’m saying it now. What are your thoughts?”
If I were giving advice on how to write well, sure, I’d suggest reading a lot. But thinking more.
If you write well, you write well (and you do, Sarah). How much you read is kind of moot now.
I get it. It's all very logical. And it's quite something that you know people who know who Camus is. I did not, so by reading this comment, I've acquired knowledge. Thank you.
Hahahaha, I will.
Ross Sullivan said that Camus thing to me recently, so you know someone who knows Camus too.
Sorry, I wasn’t explaining in a “You see, it’s all very logical, Sarah” kind of way.
Just sharing my thoughts really.
Yeah, I know, sorry, I should have said, "I agree". See, I need to read more—and therefore convey my position better! Please do continue to share your thoughts. Even more Camus quotes stolen by Ross.