Does Writing Ruin Reading For You?

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Are You Able To Remove Your Writer Hat When You Read? Or Do You Notice Every Flaw And Blunder The Other Guy Commits?

 

[OhMissScarlett]

Yes, it does. A good example of this is when I'm reading with my third grader. There's a huge series of children's mysteries he loves, but they are so badly written that I can barely stand them. I can't believe what passes for editing in major publishing houses. It's not just children's books either. On the other hand, I think it's good for a writer to recognize the bad and learn from it. Knowing you can do a better job is a confidence booster.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Every writer that I follow and read for enjoyment is a much better writer than myself........When I try someone new and they are: unimaginative, clumsy, or __________ ; I quit the read right away. If I'm not hooked in the first few sentences, it's over.
Much of the information that I have to absorb (and provide) for my day job is technical and very, very dry. That's probably why I tend to read speculative fiction.
I once tried to 'liven up' some work instructions for a shop process in order to provide some additional insight. It caused no end of confusion and aggravation. I rewrote them by the end of the shift.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I picked up a Peter Straub novel from the library yesterday. I closed the covers after 5 pages. It wanders without direction or purpose. When I encounter such books I start thinking that the author owes the publisher a manuscript, he's probably sober enough to operate his puter, and he's fucking clueless as to story. LET'S JUST WRITE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, EH!

Add Stephen King's puss, with a 'thumb's up' endorsement, and it's good to go for 10,000 library sales, plus 2500 sales to fan-atics. SK hasnt written a decent book in 20 years.

The normal process of evolution in art (or anything else) is to discover what works, then improve on it. And many successful writers do this: Le Carre, Clancy, Cornwell, King, Grisham, et al find a charming character & story world, publish 5-6 best sellers, then turn out crap for the next 25 years. I cant name one who's as good at the end as she was at the beginning.

William Styron illustrates this in his novel SOPHIE'S CHOICE. The protagonist is a junior editor at a prestigious NYC publishing house; a new writer submits a travel-adventure book for consideration, the young editor rejects it, and the book stays on the NYT Best Seller List for a year. The young editor is fired!

 

[butters]

I picked up a Peter Straub novel from the library yesterday. I closed the covers after 5 pages. It wanders without direction or purpose. When I encounter such books I start thinking that the author owes the publisher a manuscript, he's probably sober enough to operate his puter, and he's fucking clueless as to story. LET'S JUST WRITE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS, EH!

Add Stephen King's puss, with a 'thumb's up' endorsement, and it's good to go for 10,000 library sales, plus 2500 sales to fan-atics. SK hasnt written a decent book in 20 years.

The normal process of evolution in art (or anything else) is to discover what works, then improve on it. And many successful writers do this: Le Carre, Clancy, Cornwell, King, Grisham, et al find a charming character & story world, publish 5-6 best sellers, then turn out crap for the next 25 years. I cant name one who's as good at the end as she was at the beginning.

I'd have to politely disagree with your there. His Dark Tower series, begun over twenty years ago and then left hanging till he at last came around to finish them was, for me, the best of his writings.

As to the OP - I do see the flaws, particularly typos, but if reading for pleasure I can stand back enough and allow the story to dominate. When I'm reading for editing, then it's all about the nuts and bolts and spoils the actual story for me, unless I choose to read it through once first without my editing specs on.

I used to loathe it in scholl when we had to look at literature with an eye to deciphering and dissecting. Could ruin a wonderful piece of Shakespeare

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

King sez his writing is worse than it used to be, but he assumes his readers like it anyway. True. Even Hillary Clinton sells 2 million books that become worthless as soon as the sale is made.

 

[butters]

King sez his writing is worse than it used to be, but he assumes his readers like it anyway. True. Even Hillary Clinton sells 2 million books that become worthless as soon as the sale is made.

I do still enjoy his books - even if I read them without my 'editing' hat on. His Dark Tower series are, I believe he has said, the works he feels are strongest - they are something of a culmination of many ideas he has worked through over his years as an author - drunk AND dry. Have you read them at all?

 

[York]

For me it was worse with music. Back in the days I was engineering and producing stuff I could no longer listen to a song for the sake of the music but pick out the sounds and wondered how they did things. With reading I find it worse reading stories here because most are rubbish prose-wise. I find it less with novels I buy as generally they are better written, although a Lee Childs novel I got had me staggered with its simply awful prose and shopping list sentence construction.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

DARK TOWERS? No.

I read most of his novels thru IT. CARRIE, SALEMS LOT, THE SHINING, MISERY, THE LANGOLIERS, and a few short stories (DOLANS CADILLAC) are genius. But PET SEMETARY, IT, THE CELL are half-assed efforts that could be excellent with some good editing. The rest? I open them, read a few pages, and close them.

 

[butters]

DARK TOWERS? No.

I read most of his novels thru IT. CARRIE, SALEMS LOT, THE SHINING, MISERY, THE LANGOLIERS, and a few short stories (DOLANS CADILLAC) are genius. But PET SEMETARY, IT, THE CELL are half-assed efforts that could be excellent with some good editing. The rest? I open them, read a few pages, and close them.

If you get the opportunity, please take a look. But they do need to be read in order of writing. They seem far more rounded, further-reaching, and farmore more complex than his other works, and he draw threads of those into this epic story. It interchanges worlds and times while the main set of characters travel to the centre of all worlds to prevent the ... oh, read them. The first were begun by the young King, and then he picked back up on them over 20 years later.

 

[IsabellaKing]

Absolutely not.

When I read for pleasure I sit on my editing hat, and the odd spelling mistake or word left in that should have been deleted, is no more annoying than a crumb on the page.

But if I have to struggle with an author’s writing style it’ll get chucked back in the bookcase faster than you can spell prologue.

 

[sr71plt]

Writing doesn't ruin reading for me--but editing does to a certain degree. Same thing happened to my ability to enjoy stage productions after I'd been a drama and entertainment critic for newspapers.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

CHIPBUTTY

Our library system has the later volumes but not the early ones. Patrons steal the best books and they arent replaced.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Writing doesn't ruin reading for me--but editing does to a certain degree. Same thing happened to my ability to enjoy stage productions after I'd been a drama and entertainment critic for newspapers.

I'm the same way with sheet metal work, especially architectual metal. No two sheets of copper, aluminum, stainless are the same color; to fool the eye you sort the metal from darkest to lightest, and install it dark to light. So I look for glaring contrast when I judge metal work.

 

[butters]

CHIPBUTTY

Our library system has the later volumes but not the early ones. Patrons steal the best books and they arent replaced.

oh what a shame. Well, if you had to, I'd go from Wizard and Glass if they have it, since it goes back and covers some of the background not told in the earlier books but is absolutely pertinent to the main character's nature. It also brings in threads of The Stand. Try ordering in the earlier ones though if you can. I really hope you'll enjoy them anyway If not, at least you'll know won't you?

 

[Verdad]

Hmm, interesting question, but I wouldn't call it ruining. I mean, sure, once you get behind the curtain, some of the naïve consumer's thrill is gone. But it's replaced, in my opinion, with a more nuanced appreciation, which ultimately provides more enjoyment.

There are kinds of music about which I know next to nothing; when I hear them, I can have a sort of vague emotional response, like, "oh, that's nice," but that's it. When I'm on my terrain, though, I hear and enjoy every little twist. My enjoyment is thousandfold. I believe the same goes for every other art form, writing included.

 

[sr71plt]

Hmm, interesting question, but I wouldn't call it ruining. I mean, sure, once you get behind the curtain, some of the naïve consumer's thrill is gone. But it's replaced, in my opinion, with a more nuanced appreciation, which ultimately provides more enjoyment.

With me, it's more being torn away from appreciating the overall effect of the fabric to picking at the individual threads. To appreciate either a stage production (or even a TV program--where I'm usually focused on the structure and plot devices rather than the overall impression), I either have to purposely suspend all analytical response (and keep pulling myself back from that brink throughout) or read/see it a second time with that in mind.

 

[Liar]

It has lessened my tolerance for shoddy writing. Before I started thinking seriously about fiction writing and how it works, I could still get consumed by a good story poorly told.

But at the same time, I've come to appreciate good writing on new levels. Not only can I get caught up in a good plot, that way you're supposed to, but I can delight in skillful application of language and stylistic narration, regardless of the story.

And I'm not talking high brow versus low brow here. There's some waful writing among the classics and elites, as well as some wonderfully written pulp.

 

[sr71plt]

In another aspect, writing does ruin reading for me, because I want to write so much that I am reading far less than I did before writing consumed my available time. And I feel I can't read in my genres, because I don't want to be copying anyone else because I've let their techniques or devices creep in and convince me they are mine.

 

[poppy_cock]

Yeah, it's definitely spoilt some of my more recent reading experiences. In fact, I can't read some of the authors I used to admire the most. Weaknesses in the plot annoy me the most. Heroines who are too stupid to live, conflict that could be resolved with a simple conversation, etc...

Mind you, I find it quite reassuring too. Shows that just about any writer with a bit of luck and a fair wind could get published if he/she tried.

 

[Handley_Page]

I think Terry Pratchett writes as well as he ever did, but the humour is more gentle lately.