Writing Books.

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

What's your opinion of how-to-write books?

I review them and find that most of them are identical, and most are of limited value to writers beyond the novice stage.

 

[SemiColon]

Yes, and I hate being told what to do, it stirs up my rebellious side. Although if I followed some advice I might be more successful, but then I'd be less "me".

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I dont mind being told what to do, but the teachers seem to be hacks who cant demonstrate their lessons.

 

[SemiColon]

If you can't do, teach?

 

[sr71plt]

I have a how to publish book out myself that includes a section on formatting for writing and gives some of the pitfalls in writing--but I don't really tell the writers how to write or what to write. If they don't have a good handle on this themselves, they aren't ready to be published, I don't think.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I have a how to publish book out myself that includes a section on formatting for writing and gives some of the pitfalls in writing--but I don't really tell the writers how to write or what to write. If they don't have a good handle on this themselves, they aren't ready to be published, I don't think.

These books occasionally include helpful tricks that arent common knowledge. When I was a construction craftsman, everyone had a few tricks that werent taught in the apprentice school.

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

You can't teach someone how to write.

You can tell someone the mechanics of writing, grammar, editing concepts, and a bit of style. Yet, you can't teach someone how to write. Either you have it or you don't. Either you want to sit for hours writing one sentence, paragragh or story or you'd rather read someone else's writing.

I'm the first to admit that my spelling and grammar sucks. That's what editors are for. Yet, I know how to write a story.

All my professors had MFA or Ph. D's degrees and they were all of the same opinion that you can't teach someone how to write. It's something you are born to do.

For me, it's fun. I love making up scenarios and characters not knowing what will happen next and then suddenly, your character takes the keyboard from your hands and continues with the story. That's when you know it's a good story and that's when you know you are a good writer.

Writing is my passion and I really don't care if I'm published or not. Sure, I'd love to see one of my works become a novel and then a movie, but I write because I must. I write for the love of it. I write for myself.

 

[sr71plt]

I have a how to publish book out myself that includes a section on formatting for writing and gives some of the pitfalls in writing--but I don't really tell the writers how to write or what to write. If they don't have a good handle on this themselves, they aren't ready to be published, I don't think.

I meant in the above "includes a section on formatting for submission to publishers"--not writing.

 

[sr71plt]

You can tell someone the mechanics of writing, grammar, editing concepts, and a bit of style. Yet, you can't teach someone how to write. Either you have it or you don't. Either you want to sit for hours writing one sentence, paragragh or story or you'd rather read someone else's writing.

I'm the first to admit that my spelling and grammar sucks. That's what editors are for. Yet, I know how to write a story.

All my professors had MFA or Ph. D's degrees and they were all of the same opinion that you can't teach someone how to write. It's something you are born to do.

For me, it's fun. I love making up scenarios and characters not knowing what will happen next and then suddenly, your character takes the keyboard from your hands and continues with the story. That's when you know it's a good story and that's when you know you are a good writer.

Writing is my passion and I really don't care if I'm published or not. Sure, I'd love to see one of my works become a novel and then a movie, but I write because I must. I write for the love of it. I write for myself.

I think it's partially innate, but not wholly. I think you can learn to get into the ballpark of good writing by doing a lot of reading (with your mind engaged on the technique of what you're reading) and by doing a lot of writing yourself. The main problem is that this is usually a long process, and most who try it want instant gratification and success and aren't willing to slough it out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BOSTONFICTIONWRITER

I think you can teach people to play baseball, but I dont believe you can teach anyone how to bat .400, hit 60 homers, and lead the league in stolen bases.

Many writers have formulas that work for them. Clancy, W.E.B.Griffin, Stephen King, Danielle Steele, Patricia Cornwell. But they arent great writers.

 

[jomar]

For me, it's fun. I love making up scenarios and characters not knowing what will happen next and then suddenly, your character takes the keyboard from your hands and continues with the story. That's when you know it's a good story and that's when you know you are a good writer.

Not necessarily. I'm reading Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series. Twenty books that takes Sharpe through his career as a soldier. His story is chronological, gut the books were written out of order. The first books written refer to earlier happenings that didn't exist in writing yet. And some of the happenings were changed slightly when Cornwell got around to writing them.

Cornwell had put some serious thought and planning into his character's development so that he could write twenty excellent (if you like the topic) books about Sharpe's life. He knew his character and story lines before he started writing.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I know a good story almost writes itself. For me the characters are merely actors who dance to the tune of the story. Every writer needs to find what works for them.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

BOSTONFICTIONWRITER

I think you can teach people to play baseball, but I dont believe you can teach anyone how to bat .400, hit 60 homers, and lead the league in stolen bases.

Many writers have formulas that work for them. Clancy, W.E.B.Griffin, Stephen King, Danielle Steele, Patricia Cornwell. But they arent great writers.

I don't know, I've read every book that Stephen King ever wrote and I've yet to determine his "formula". I seriously disagree with your determination that he can't write.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Dont put words in my mouth.

SK writes commercial grade entertainment, just like Clancy and all the rest. But SK is no artiste and his writing does use formulas. Refer to Eric Berne and his catalog of social games people play. They were popular about the time SK started publishing.

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Not necessarily. I'm reading Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series. Twenty books that takes Sharpe through his career as a soldier. His story is chronological, gut the books were written out of order. The first books written refer to earlier happenings that didn't exist in writing yet. And some of the happenings were changed slightly when Cornwell got around to writing them.

Cornwell had put some serious thought and planning into his character's development so that he could write twenty excellent (if you like the topic) books about Sharpe's life. He knew his character and story lines before he started writing.

I've known writers who research everything to death before they write the first word to a page. I've known writers who outline all that they plan to write before they write it. I've known writers who stare for hours at a blank page wondering what to write and struggling over one sentence for months.

I only write when inspired. I never stare at a blank page. I hate outlines, too much like work. Ditto with research. If I wanted to research what I wrote, I'd write non-fiction. Yes, I know James Michner wrote well researched sagas that were fictional, yet, that's not how I write.

The entire story hits me all at once, the beginning, the middle, and the end, even the title. I write the first draft in a sitting. Granted, I'm only talking about a story between 1,500 words and 3,000 words.

Once, I have the first draft, I get away from it and return to it later to fill in more discription and imagery. Every writer has their own way of writing.

Then, again, there are those writers who can write under pressure from their editors or publishers. I can't write that way.

This, fortunately or unfortunately, is the best writing time of my life because I am free to write whatever I want whenever I want, so long as my characters don't force me to write something else not intended (lol).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

BFW

Jon Franklin said you can hold a short story outline in your head, but you cant do it with a novel. He's right. When I get to 20,000 words I need a scorecard to keep things sorted out.

 

[Iamcanadian28]

Dont put words in my mouth.

SK writes commercial grade entertainment, just like Clancy and all the rest. But SK is no artiste and his writing does use formulas. Refer to Eric Berne and his catalog of social games people play. They were popular about the time SK started publishing.

Perhaps you could give me an example of a great writer, for comparative purposes. Across 30 years of writing his themes are about as varied as possible.

 

[Guest]

I don't know, I've read every book that Stephen King ever wrote and I've yet to determine his "formula". I seriously disagree with your determination that he can't write.

Agreed.

Formula? I don't think so. As to whether he can "write" or not, again, disagreed. He doesn't write high-falutin literature, to be sure.

But he writes human. He writes emotion. He writes humor.

He writes reality.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Tolstoy. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. W.Somerset Maughm. Jack London.

SK writes kewl stories about monsters.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If you think SK writes reality let me refer you to CHRISTINE, the Plymouth that ate Fort Wayne.

 

[Guest]

Tolstoy. Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings. W.Somerset Maughm. Jack London.

SK writes kewl stories about monsters.

Steve-oh writes stories about people.

The monsters are plot devices.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Steve-oh writes stories about people.

The monsters are plot devices.

SK says he writes about monsters, his wife says he writes about monsters. Read his interviews.

 

[Guest]

If you think SK writes reality let me refer you to CHRISTINE, the Plymouth that ate Fort Wayne.

Tat. If you think all Steve writes about is "kewl monsters", you're missing a hella lot, dude.

 

[Guest]

SK says he writes about monsters, his wife says he writes about monsters. Read his interviews.

Ooooh - I am dissed and dismissed. *rolleyes*

Not all monsters are supernatural.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Tat. If you think all Steve writes about is "kewl monsters", you're missing a hella lot, dude.

Well, dude, I take SK at his word. Maybe you know his mind better than he does.