Top ten books you can't call yourself a writer without reading?

[Whosis]

I don't know if anyone covered this, but grigioverde's comment on page 1 seems a bit out of place. I didn't interpret this as a list of books for people to aspire toward to be a writer, which I think is perfectly fine to emulate other authors anyway. Writers have a taste in books that may differ from other readers. I believe many aspire to Hemingway for his dialogue. As for what I like to read as a writer, I like to focus on contemporary American literature, particularly for competing with my style, so I may read Don DeLillo or some other.

[Emil Miller]

I can assure you in France, where I live, Balzac is generally more highly regarded than the other major 19th century French prose writers Stendhal, Flaubert, Zola, Hugo, and Maupassant. I'm not going to bring Proust into the equation, since he's a modernist, and it would be like comparing apples to oranges. But living here, I often get the sense they regard Balzac more than any other as their greatest literary glory, at least if we're sticking to prose. Then again, maybe it depends on one's political orientation where more 'progressive' types tend to favor Balzac and Dostoevsky while the more 'reactionary' Victorian intellectuals go for Hugo and Tolstoy. I don't know.

I agree that in France Balzac is probably more highly regarded than those French writers of the latter part of the 19th century. It is, however, important to remember that his writings belong to the restoration period between 1815 through the revolution of 1830 to the establishment of the second Empire of Napoleon III in 1852; by which time a profound change had created a country that was altogether different to that of Balzac's: the France of Flaubert, Zola, Daudet and Maupassant. I have never read Balzac without feeling that he belongs to a different age and country. Books such as Eugénie Grandet, La Peau de chagrin, Le Père Goriot, etc., are certainly major works but they don't engage me as much as those writers who are closer to our time and whose influence is therefore more self-evident.

[WolfLarsen]

Reading good books is not enough. In fact, writers can learn more from the other arts than they can from literature, because literature is behind the other arts.

It seems that a good deal of many writers are stuck in the past. I think you can learn more from the advancements in painting since the 1880s, then you can learn from literature. In addition, one can watch modern dance performances, listen to 20th-century & 21st-century classical music, as well as advant-guard free jazz, etc.

In fact, you never know where inspiration might come from! For Picasso, it came from African masks and new discoveries in science about atoms. I have found Afro-Brazilian music to be very inspirational. And why not try some comic relief from the literary world? The more the better, as the literary world is so stuffy, pretentious, and Puritanical!

Merely reading good books is not enough. Either not enough good books have been written, or not enough good books are being published. The canon is a joke! And the publishing corporations seem mostly dedicated to airport novels, because that's where the money is. Well-written literary fiction is produced in massive quantities, but the lack of innovation is rather stifling or boring or both.

And what are the good books? That is debatable. Perhaps a lot of the stuff on the canon is not very good. I remember a "literary magazine" (well, it was more like zine) that was called **** Diary. I would say that it and other zines like it would make better essential reading, than anything that was in the pretentious or prestigious literary magazines. In fact, much of the writing in **** Diary was better than stuff that won the Pushcart Prize.

I think that an illiterate person could make a good writer, it mostly depends on their level of creativity. There are many well-read people that you do not know how to write, or have nothing original to contribute to literature, although they may be quite adapt at writing good conventional literature (otherwise known as literary fiction).

But I'm serious about the possibility of an illiterate person being a better writer than most of the people who are traditionally published. If someone is very creative – if someone has great stories to tell – if their literature is unique & exciting – then they can be a great "writer" without having read any of the great books many of you talk about. Voice-recognition software and a big imagination can make a great writer of an illiterate person. (Albeit, voice-recognition software has a long way to go! So such a person may need some assistance, perhaps an academic person could help an illiterate person write great books! A lot of people with college degrees simply just casn't write a great book, they just don't have the imagination.)

But reading great books no doubt helps. There are some works that are better than others. Shakespeare sonnets you could do without, there's little special about them. But anyone who has not seen or at least read most of Shakespeare's plays is missing out on something big. I think everyone should read Hemingway as well, because he communicates with such easy-to-read simplicity. You learn a lot from reading Hemingway. Hemingway, by the way, was originally despised by many in the literary establishment because his writing style was new at the time.

I have always liked Jean Toomer's Cane. He writes simply like Hemingway, but each one of his words is so essential, and each phrase packs a wallop! I would argue that Jean Toomer is more special than Hemingway. He is probably my favorite writer, well, actually some of the best writing I've seen has been from unknowns on the Internet. People that will probably die in obscurity, and whose writings will never be read in a college course.

Octavo Paz's poetry is also very powerful (when he's properly translated). Anne Sexton has both simplicity and the great power of her imagery. She never finished college by the way. There is also the poets Andrei Codrescu, Russell Edson, and there's some great anthologies out there of modern French poets, surrealistic poets, cubist poets, modern Chinese poets, etc.

But some of the best writing I've ever read was in a literary zine called **** Diary.

And you know what? My favorite writer/poet is myself. I think I should be essential reading in all the schools of the nation and of the world. Of course, it would drive the Puritans mad. And the conservative literary establishment. And my lack of modesty will make many uncomfortable I'm sure.

Looking around you on the Internet, it's like many of the writers & poets of today are not familiar with the great innovations in literature in the past 100 years. But then again, most of it is not assigned reading in college literary courses. But, sometimes you come across unusual writing on the Internet, and when I do it makes me so happy! Especially if it's not dry and boring.

[Pumpkin337]

There is self-aggrandizement and then there is sheer delusion.

[WolfLarsen]

I do believe it is a prerequisite to be insane to be a good writer. However, there are different kinds of sanity and insanity. There is a sane part of me for everyday functions, like sitting on the toilet for example, or taking a bus.

But if I were a completely sane person I would not write – at least I would not write literature – what is a sane person doing writing literature?

So I think in order to be a writer you also have to be at least partly insane. I think being partly insane is more important to being a writer than reading good books. No, wait – reading good books is very important – but just as important is being partly insane. I mean you need some insane creativity.

Also to be a good writer I think you need a lack of conformity. There must be some rebellion inside of you. You must also have the balls to write what you want to write against the voices of censorship, which are many, and come in many different forms.

[AuntShecky]

"You don't seem to have many books. You write more than you read--the mark of a true amateur."

I heard that line (or a paraphrase of it) in the film Quills (2000). (Seeing the direction to which this thread veered off, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that movie--it's about the Marquis de Sade!)

My point is aspiring writers should spend more time reading than writing for the following reasons:

1. To know what's already been "done." The point is to create something "new," from your own unique vision, not to rehash the earlier, albeit successful, works of others.

2. To learn the craft -- not to "copy" the techniques of others but to assimiliate them into your own personal style.

3. Remember-- the quality of writing arises not from the "what" but the "how."

4. The tools of the trade: words, sentences, paragraphs, words, structure, and did I say words?

So-- why only "ten" books? Read everything. Read voraciously. Compulsively -- both the good (so you'll know what to do) and the bad (so you'll know what not to do.)

[WolfLarsen]

"You don't seem to have many books. You write more than you read--the mark of a true amateur."

I heard that line (or a paraphrase of it) in the film Quills (2000). (Seeing the direction to which this thread veered off, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that movie--it's about the Marquis de Sade!)

My point is aspiring writers should spend more time reading than writing for the following reasons:

1. To know what's already been "done." The point is to create something "new," from your own unique vision, not to rehash the earlier, albeit successful, works of others.

2. To learn the craft -- not to "copy" the techniques of others but to assimiliate them into your own personal style.

3. Remember-- the quality of writing arises not from the "what" but the "how."

4. The tools of the trade: words, sentences, paragraphs, words, structure, and did I say words?

So-- why only "ten" books? Read everything. Read voraciously. Compulsively -- both the good (so you'll know what to do) and the bad (so you'll know what not to do.)

I both agree with this, but I also feel there's something missing here.

There is nothing in this that isn't true. It's all true.

However, it just isn't that simple. There are people who are extremely creative who write great stuff, and who are not widely read. There are people who are widely read, but the stuff they write is nothing exceptional.

I find it interesting how many jazz musicians can write such great literature, and how many painters can also write such great literature. These people are writing stuff that's way better than material that wins the Nobel Prize or the Pushcart Prize. Writers can learn a lot from them. Salvador Dali the author (yes he also wrote) writes way more interesting stuff than 95% of the authors out there.

There's something to music. And there's something to the spontaneity of jazz. And there's something about the accomplishments of painting since the 1880s – accomplishments that leave the literary world in the dust (in my opinion). Words and phrases need music – look at the dramatic works of Shakespeare! Absolutely married to music! Very musical!

Reading widely can only be helpful, but in itself it is not enough. It is not nearly enough. There has to be more than merely reading widely to produce a good writer. In fact, while reading widely may be very helpful, it is not essential.

There are tribal societies that have storytellers that are not widely read. Maybe they are illiterate. But they can often tell a story better than many a published author who has read many books.

Something is lacking in the literary world. It is too dry, too brittle, too much like a white wall, a blank white wall.

Something is missing. Perhaps sex? Not just talking about sex, not just sexual scenes, but the feeling of sex – the FEELING of sex in the poetry or prose. Too much censorship! And the world is too uptight about sex! And frankly the average writer doesn't have enough sex – and that has a detrimental effect on writing or any other creative endeavor, I would argue. Creativity and sex are absolutely linked I believe! Lots of great sex is not essential to being a great writer, but I would argue it's very helpful!

And the FEELING of music. And there must be FRESHNESS. You know how impressionistic painting painted today feels so dry & inhibited & stale compared to the impressionist painting of the late 19th century – when it was fresh!

Writers are rehashing the same old style of writing over and over again. As if there is only one way to write! And that's why so much writing lacks freshness! For writing to be fresh it must break new ground! It must be truly creative!

The literary world does not need more conventional literary fiction, there's too much of it as it is. The literary world needs more writing from people that have been homeless, from people that are insane, from people that were drug addicts, from people that had lots of sex in their lives, from people that had lots of adventure in their lives. And especially from people that have giant imaginations! People like Salvador Dali! Salvador Dali's two works of creative literature are worth more than much of the canon combined! So much of the canon that writers are told to emulate is very dry, and very mediocre.

You can be a proficient sculptor. A proficient sculptor that sculpts things in the same style that so many others sculpted before you. But for some reason it might not feel fresh. It might feel dry. Very proficient in sculpting – like a super master craftsmen – but something is lacking. Because such as sculptor is merely copying the styles that have already been done over & over again.

I walked through an art museum the other day. I was so envious! Why can't writers write with the same creativity that painters paint? Some writers are up to it, but most are not. Come to think of it even most painters I know (I am related to one, he painted my avatar) are only capable of painting what is in front of them.

What can you write about? You can write about your own personal experiences, but what if your life is boring? What does that leave? Your imagination! You must write what is in your imagination! (Well, do what you want, but really, do you want to excite us with your writing?)

My life has been far less boring than most. And even then there reaches a point where in order to tell an interesting story I have to start resorting to my imagination. And then there is the factor that perhaps the writer himself becomes bored of endlessly writing in the conventional style.

Once a boy soldier in Africa, or a crab fishermen in Alaska, (very interesting conventional reading!) has told that tale of his life then he can move on to other things besides writing, or he can use his imagination to create something that's interesting to read, or you can write an endless series of books about crab fishing in Alaska, who's gonna read them all? What for? Maybe reading two of them is enough!

I don't disagree with anything you said. But I think there's a lot more to it than simply being widely read. And being a proficient writer, there's a zillion of those! They're a dime a dozen!

As the quality of computers and voice-recognition software improves, it will be possible soon for an illiterate person to write almost with the same "quality" as a well-educated person.

This reminds me of the situation that painters faced with the invention of the camera. Why paint merely what's there when the camera can do that?

Perhaps the next step in great writing will be those who completely depart from conventional grammar. Some have already done it. But soon perhaps the person who writes in a conventional manner will be regarded as merely an illiterate hack.

I would argue that conventional writing has its place. But it has its limitations.

[mande2013]

I would never suggest an aspiring writer not read. There must be a cerebral aspect to all creative aspirations. Otherwise it merely becomes a form of sensory stimulation and nothing more. The idea of art as being entirely visceral is romantic and amateurish. It's a short cut. Craftsmanship is underrated. With that said, where does one start if they want to be a writer but are behind on their 'canon consumption'? Should one not start writing until they've read enough books? Should they read and write at the same time, one day reading voraciously the next day writing? As for me, I would suggest they read and write simultaneously. Being a great artist in any medium means making sacrifices, and that could entail risking going to the grave without having read Homer or Ulysses or Moby Dick. That's just an example of course. I'm not saying don't read Moby Dick necessarily. While a great writer must be a reader, even if not necessarily as well-read as Harold Bloom, he or she still needs to prioritize. In other words, avoid developing a guilt complex over the fact you haven't yet read X or Y canonical work, because that just leads to writer's block.

[Aylinn]

I would not suggest an aspiring writer not read either. I don't see how that can be helpful. People who are not well-read usually end up being terrible writers. As for writers having knowledge of different subject areas, this is bound to be welcome. After all, apart from having good style, they should also be able to have something interesting to write about.

[Marbles]

I have come to realise that good writers are first excellent readers, and then good writers. It is impossible to be a good artist without having a rounded appreciation of the tradition you're trying to advance.

In a letter a young girl sent to William Faulkner in response to the critique Faulkner had made of her stories [on her own request], she said that she hated to read other writers lest her unique ideas and special language be corrupted by outside influence. Faulkner, calmly but definitely, brought the point home: "I learned to write from reading other writers; why can't you?'

[mande2013]

I have come to realise that good writers are first excellent readers, and then good writers. It is impossible to be a good artist without having a rounded appreciation of the tradition you're trying to advance.

In a letter a young girl sent to William Faulkner in response to the critique Faulkner had made of her stories [on her own request], she said that she hated to read other writers lest her unique ideas and special language be corrupted by outside influence. Faulkner, calmly but definitely, brought the point home: "I learned to write from reading other writers; why can't you?'

Agreed, but how do we define an "excellent reader"? Is it someone who aces the SAT verbal? Is it okay to be a late bloomer in that department, as far as reading great literature is concerned. With that said, omniscience with respect to the literary canon is hard to come by unlike with say the jazz canon considering how vast the former is. Most literature academics generally have a specialty, whether that be 19th century French poetry or Elizabethan era drama. They can't conquer it all. Saying that, yes, we should all have at least a passing familiarity with Milton, Dante, Kafka, Joyce, Tolstoy, Cervantes, Dickens, Shakespeare, and even someone like Pynchon, in order to have a sense of the general historical narrative of the literary arts. Yes, absolutely.

Can someone with dyslexia or some other type of LD ever have any hope of becoming a great writer? Does having an LD preclude being an excellent reader?

[mande2013]

Also, I could be wrong here, but I sense "amateurish" essentially implies 'enfant terrible' like Henry Miller or Bukowski.

[WolfLarsen]

Again, I don't disagree with the idea that people should be as widely read as possible.

However, reading an endless monotony of conventional "literary fiction" is helpful to what?

Perhaps at a certain point being surrounded by monotony can make one's own literary worldview rather monotonous?

And I think there is an exaggeration of what we as a species have accomplished. Have we really accomplished that much in literature? We as a species have existed for 200,000 years, and the first 190,000 years we didn't do much in terms of literature.

Well, maybe we told stories around the fire in the cave. And maybe after eating certain roots or whatever some of the stories got rather goofy, or creative, and entertaining. But nobody wrote it down, there was no system of writing. But maybe many of the stories told over the fire by prehistoric man were far more interesting than much that is published today. But then again, maybe not.

Perhaps literature is only in its embryonic stages at the present point. After all, unless there's a nuclear war first, think what literature will look like 200,000 years from now!

Maybe it won't even be two-dimensional. Perhaps literature will be a 360° experience. And that's just for starters.

Basically, we primates are intellectually lazy, and there are perhaps species in this universe who have a far greater literature than our own. It's not impossible that compared to other species we are rather dumb, considering there are over 200 billion galaxies in the universe, and perhaps there is more than one universe. Basically, we are a bunch of primates on some floating rock. Perhaps our best literature is little more than chicken scratch compared to what other species in the universe have done.

What we may consider "great" and essential reading may be overrated. Is James Joyce really that good? Lots of people say so, but does that make it true? You could say the same about so many writers/poets in the canon. It isn't great just because a bunch of primates tell you it is.

[Marbles]

Agreed, but how do we define an "excellent reader"? Is it someone who aces the SAT verbal? Is it okay to be a late bloomer in that department, as far as reading great literature is concerned. With that said, omniscience with respect to the literary canon is hard to come by unlike with say the jazz canon considering how vast the former is. Most literature academics generally have a specialty, whether that be 19th century French poetry or Elizabethan era drama. They can't conquer it all. Saying that, yes, we should all have at least a passing familiarity with Milton, Dante, Kafka, Joyce, Tolstoy, Cervantes, Dickens, Shakespeare, and even someone like Pynchon, in order to have a sense of the general historical narrative of the literary arts. Yes, absolutely.

Can someone with dyslexia or some other type of LD ever have any hope of becoming a great writer? Does having an LD preclude being an excellent reader?

I was actually advancing an idea than offer a precise definition of what it means to be an 'excellent reader', such that, in my opinion, an excellent reader is the one who learns well from their readings, absorbs ideas about form, style, word usage, thought production, plot-weaving, character-building, trends in literature - in general storytelling - and having thus gained reading experience, uses their gift to become a good writer themselves. It's not a cause-and-effect sort of regime. Both reading and writing go in synergy, and it's a lifetime endeavour. I have not heard of a great writer who had admittedly been a poor reader.

I agree that having read thoroughly by the time a young writer puts pen to paper in what has come to be accepted as 'canon' is a minority feat and most writers probably don't have better reading experience than an educated lay reader. What makes those writers different from lay readers is that they have a gift for good writing, and a will to write, which they have used to create their own voice.

I also think it is not necessary to be thoroughly read in canonical works to be a good writer because there is so much else outside the so called canon that a writer needs to consume for a rounded perspective on life and humanity, and that includes a lot of non-fiction and international literary traditions. But, as you said, a good acquaintance with the canonical works always helps. Even then, a writer should have a discriminatory reading list and prioritise some canonical works over others because, let's face it, having found a place on the canon by a general consensus of the litterateur is still no guarantee that the work possesses great merit. Popular appeal? Yes, but great merit? Maybe.

[JCamilo]

Jesus, you don't have to have such familiarity with watsoever. Writers are not academics. And what some writers read may have little or nothing to do with the canon. When you keep running in circle with "reading all canon" as a mantra and you guys cannot even mention the only man who is basically the canon, Virgil, and this "expert readers" non sense, you are just creating an over-vallued Oprah club.

Just read because you want, reading only the canon is as bad as reading only crap.