Books to help simplify writing.

[youngsquire]

I am currently in the process of trying to simplify my writing.

The authors that have helped me so far are: Hemingway, Carver and Bukowski.

Does anyone have any other suggestions?

(I am trying to learn how to write simply and with brevity, while still incorporating emotion and rich content into my writing.)

[sandracollin]

I also like Carver and Hemingway. For new writers it would be a pain in the neck if you are not really getting the right direction when writing. It takes a lot of practice and patience. On the other side, we should also know the right resources to look for in case we are confused of something.

[Calidore]

Elmore Leonard's "Ten Rules of Writing" focuses on simplicity.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/feb/24/elmore-leonard-rules-for-writers

Read that, then check out his work to see how he put it into practice. The link below brings up numerous best-of lists with several novels appearing regularly:

https://www.google.com/#q=best+elmore+leonard+novels

[AuntShecky]

There are plenty of helpful writing advice books, notably the famous Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. I also recommend The Elements of Expression by Arthur Plotnik and especially On Writing Well by William Zinsser.

Advice from established writers as in the Paris Review Interviews can be extremely valuable, as reading their works first-hand, which is what you've told us you've been doing.

But one thing you have to keep in mind is that there is no magic formula. You've got to keep plugging away: reading to the point of obsession, at first spending more time reading than writing, and then writing and rewriting while striving for excellence. It may take 20 years (as JFK says) or 10,000 hours (Malcolm Gladwell.)

There are no short cuts.

[Lykren]

It may take 20 years (as JFK says) or 10,000 hours (Malcolm Gladwell.)

My problem with such estimations is that writers like Madeleine de Scudery existed, who wrote many millions of words (four of her novels alone comprise 32 volumes) and so undoubtedly spent at least 10,000 hours putting pen to paper, but are clearly not as good as Shakespeare, who wrote far less. It seems that when you say 'there is no magic formula' you immediately contradict yourself, saying that 'you've got to keep plugging away'. If hard work is all it took, that at least would be a guarantee. But when it comes to art, there are no guarantees.

I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_writers) on Wikipedia (undoubtedly the source of all true knowledge). How many of the writers on that list are respected by the culturally informed?

[Iain Sparrow]

My problem with such estimations is that writers like Madeleine de Scudery existed, who wrote many millions of words (four of her novels alone comprise 32 volumes) and so undoubtedly spent at least 10,000 hours putting pen to paper, but are clearly not as good as Shakespeare, who wrote far less. It seems that when you say 'there is no magic formula' you immediately contradict yourself, saying that 'you've got to keep plugging away'. If hard work is all it took, that at least would be a guarantee. But when it comes to art, there are no guarantees.

I found this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prolific_writers) on Wikipedia (undoubtedly the source of all true knowledge). How many of the writers on that list are respected by the culturally informed?

And the writer must have a story to tell.
I can't tell you all the books I've loved that were written by very average line-level writers, or at least not great writers. Lord of the Rings comes to mind.

[R.F. Schiller]

I've found that George Orwell's writing is very direct and "standard". His essays are also great exemplary pieces of writing.

[AuntShecky]

My problem with such estimations is that writers like Madeleine de Scudery existed, who wrote many millions of words (four of her novels alone comprise 32 volumes) and so undoubtedly spent at least 10,000 hours putting pen to paper, but are clearly not as good as Shakespeare, who wrote far less. It seems that when you say 'there is no magic formula' you immediately contradict yourself, saying that 'you've got to keep plugging away'. If hard work is all it took, that at least would be a guarantee. But when it comes to art, there are no guarantees.



Of course, quantity does not necessarily lead to quality. Even I know that. The 20 years/10,000 benchmarks refer to time spent learning, practicing, honing one's skills in order to have a shot of producing a worthwhile work.

I didn't meant that the 20 years or 10,000 of practice were a "magic formula." Magic, if it even exists, acts much faster than that. There aren't any short cuts for becoming a "good" writer as opposed to a "published" writer. We both could probably list dozens of examples of so-called "writers" who happened to have connections, fame in some other area of show biz, or at least a relative who works for a publisher or literary agent. But that's neither here nor there.

I've lived long enough to realize that there are no guarantees in life -- for anything. But that doesn't mean we should stop trying.

Incidentally, congratulations on winning the $400 poetry contest!

Auntie

[mal4mac]

My problem with such estimations is that writers like Madeleine de Scudery existed, who wrote many millions of words (four of her novels alone comprise 32 volumes) and so undoubtedly spent at least 10,000 hours putting pen to paper, but are clearly not as good as Shakespeare, who wrote far less.

But AuntShecky was suggesting spending 10 000 hours "reading to the point of obsession, at first spending more time reading than writing, and then writing and rewriting while striving for excellence." She wasn't suggesting spending 100 000 hours churning out pot boilers! The only criticism I would make is that "10 000" hours is thought not to be a great estimate by many scholars. I read a web page by a psychologist who studied chess players in detail, and found some masters had only needed about a 1000 hours to become that good, others 100 000. Some untalented wood pushers had spent a 100 000 hours studying in a near optimal fashion and were nowhere near being masters. So even if you take AuntShecky's excellent advice you may not get anywhere.

So my advice would be definitely read to obsession, if you enjoy reading (!), and write if you are driven to write, and enjoy it (!), but don't think you'll definitely be a great writer if you do your 10 000 hours of immaculate study, you may be an untalented wood pusher.