What should I major in if I'd like to be a good novelist?

[Evaril]

The answer is probably anything. I know I don't even need a college degree to be a novelist. But hear me out first.

The most logical choice would be literature, since almost all good novelists are voracious readers of fiction. However, I'm taking a literature class now and I hate it for so many reasons. I feel like I'm not learning anything and that I'm paying 5000 dollars in tuition just to read books that I would have read on my own (or already have read). What are your thoughts on this?

I've tried other courses in other departments and my favorites are:
Classics (esp. Latin)
Philosophy
History

I'm having a tough time choosing one of the three because they are all equally interesting to me. I've consulted the head of each department and they swayed me by reasons such as Classics would make you read some of the finest works and philosophy would give you insight into some of humanity's deepest problems, etc. Which one of the above three, in your opinion, stands out to you as something that would be particularly helpful to an aspiring novelist?

[miyagisan]

If you're interested in writing, I would suggest an English writing program. You'll learn a LOT and actually have a useful degree in four years. From there you can get an MFA if you want to. What university are you at?

[semi-fly]

There is no direct correlation between your major and your ability to become a novelist. Just look at some of your favorite authors and see what they majored in and that should tell you something.

A quick snapshot of some well known authors:
Stephen King - majored in English
J. K. Rowlings - majored in French and the Classics
Arthur Miller - began as a journalism major then switched to English
William Faulkner - no degree but was influenced by the history of the state of Mississippi
William S. Burroughs - no degree but was influenced by journalism
Issac Asimov - PhD. in Biochemistry
Thomas More - Studied Latin and Logic
Jane Austen - studied French in primary school but was mostly self taught
Thomas Hardy - studied architecture

A friendly suggestion, pick something that you enjoy and something that you can see providing you an opportunity for a lifetime employment.

[FalseReality]

I went to a reading and Q&A session with Jamaica Kincaid, and one of her former students told a story about how he walked into her office and asked her to write a recommendation for a masters writing program. Kincaid looked at him and said, "I'll write you a recommendation for Med School."

The point is, good writers should know about things other than writing.

[crystalmoonshin]

If you really are serious about being a novelist, then you have to read a lot. But not only that, you also have to experience a lot. You have to be a really well-rounded person.

I also want to be a novelist. Right now, there are a lot of things swimming inside my head that I have yet to put into paper. I'm taking up European Languages, BTW, and Latin is required. I took it up just last semester and I must say that I really was serious for once. Right now, I'm being introduced to Spanish literature (and it's not just about Don Quixote :) ) and I'm absorbing as much as I can from the lectures. Then again, I'm not totally focused on my course. FRom time to time, I read books by Japanese writers or some English classics, whatever suits my mood.

Just don't focus on one thing. I'd say, explore a lot. :)

[Evaril]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, I am pretty much a staunch autodidact. I prefer studying on my own to taking classes, and I usually spend more time reading books not required for class than reading the ones required (which is proving to be a dangerous habit). My curriculum is heavily liberal artsy (along with some creative writing courses). My problem now is choosing a major. I find it hard to commit to any one particular thing, and I'd prefer not having to major in anything and just take a bit of everything. I guess your advice so far, collectively, would be that it doesn't matter which one of my three interests I choose.

[The Comedian]

A lot depends on the type of person you are, your interests, and true career goals.

That being said, I suspect that being a novelist is really though, especially right out of school. If I were to put on my parent hat, I'd say major in something practical: business, nursing, education etc. . .and minor in something that you love: language, art, creative writing etc. . .This way, you have should have viable career when you graduate and some training to write novels in your off-hours. In time, hopefully, you can give up your "real" job to write full-time once you become established and can support yourself.

I know that this is not the most romantic advice; it's not "follow your dreams and they'll come true" kind of stuff. Take of it what you will.

[JBI]

I don't know many good writers who actually studied writing - I think that generally is for people who are looking to make money writing, be that free-lance or romance novels. Generally, anything will do - I personally went with English and languages to go with my aspirations at writing poetry, and ended up, at the moment, more interested in writing criticism, than anything else - though I thought writing criticism would be a good career, sort of like Eliot's job working for Faber and Faber.

[mayneverhave]

My aspirations are in writing as well - be it drama, prose, or verse (it doesn't seem necessary to me to choose only one).

I'm currently majoring in English, and for the most part it is edifying, but the majority of my learning takes place outside of the classroom in my own reading of criticism and books not prescribed in my classes.

I've taken a two creative writing classes previously (one in poetry, one in prose), and am currently enrolled in a third at the moment. JBI's assessment that these classes automatically are geared toward hack writing is somewhat a generalization (though I doubt he meant it to represent all creative writing classes), but there is some truth to the sentiment.

Writing, of course, takes work, but there I am greatly drawn to the notion that great writers require, not only perseverance and hard work, but artistic ambition, a sort of metaphysical notion of what makes great art. This is somewhat indefinable, but whenever my writing professor asks for us to hand in our "stories", I cringe. My interests are not simply to be a story teller - they extend farther and deeper than that.

That being said, if you are truly interested in what can be termed artistic-or literary-writing, I am convinced that much can be gleamed from large amounts of reading, and not necessarily in a classroom setting.

[Bancini]

major in what interests you

[joseph90ie]

They say writing is a vocation, as in something you've no choice about, like it's a compulsion; that you may even have the desire to avoid it, but it'll catch up with you, you won't be able to ignore it, it'll leave a void if you don't pursue that solitary, thoughtful way of life. If you don't have an instinctual urge to write, take up a more ordinary occupation and excel at that; you'll probably be a lot more happy.

If you go along asking for advice about what you need to learn before writing, it sounds like writing really isn't for you, and you're dabbling out of boredom and misplaced ambition, wasting time at what you could be really good at and where your abilities would flourish.

Don't ask yourself what you've to read in order to become a novelist: there's no answer to that. It sounds to me like you should be asking yourself, instead, what do you really want to do in life.

Nothing has to be learned to become a writer - nothing at all. And those who become good writers do not do so because of their learning. There are many superb scholars who are useless with a pen; the majority of them, I'm sure. Many geniuses are untutored. Lots of people write their best stuff very early on, like Pope or Austen, before they've learnt a lot - however much they may have learnt afterwards.

Anything you may have to say on the page that will be worthwhile for others to read will come from within yourself, through honest, painful examination; or through the unpretentious expression of your modest aspects. Because reading doesn't translate into writing. Writing is separate. Do you want to know how to become a writer? Chekhov would say, then simply write, every day, write and keep writing. You can spend a lifetime enjoying the right books, and seeing with your eye and head what is the best way of expressing the nicest thoughts. However, until you pick up a pen, no matter how mentally prepared you were with all the books, you'll still be making the errors of a novice. On the other hand, show me a man who's spent ten years learning how to express himself by holding a pen in his hand and staining the page, yet only read a handful of books. This man won't read a book as well as the scholar, perhaps; but I bet you anything his writing will be masterly compared to the scholar, if the scholar has spent most time reading instead of writing. And that's because reading and writing are different crafts, though there does seem to be overlap; but the overlap is not to be focussed on. More can be learned about the nature of reading and writing by considering them as separate, and practicing them separtely, than dwelling on their superficial similarities and trying to figure out how good reading can be translated into good writing.

What to read in order to write, you ask? That's a meaningless question. There are two separate questions in this area: what to read, and what to write. Read what you enjoy, and nothing else, unless you're getting paid, in which case read what you're getting paid for and no more. If you read stuff you don't enjoy, you're taking backwards steps in the learning process: backward steps. - As for writing, nobody can tell you that, not even yourself: all you can do is pick up the pen and start to write, see what happens and hope. Otherwise, forget about writing: you'll only be ruining your life and be false to your family and friends because you're unaware of who you are - years will be wasted.

[phoenix151]

I'm with Joseph.
I would never want to discourage a young person from utilizing the oppurtunities given by attending college, but if you've already got a knack for narration and the gift of prose, or just want to do the stream of consciousness thing, I would suggest spending as much time as possible away from the sterile environs of a classroom and more time aquiring real life experience and travel. Ideally, you should attend college for all the experience and the amenities, and major in mountain climbing or something.

[Evaril]

joseph90ie, thanks for the deep insight. I truly appreciate it and I completely agree. However, you seem to be making assumptions about me. I am rather set on becoming a novelist and I've been writing stories almost daily for many years now. I read almost all kinds of books and I'm having a blast at that, so I'm not exactly asking what I should be reading in order to be a writer. I'm merely at a crossroad at the moment - I have to declare a major by the end of this term and I haven't any clue. I came here to ask if anyone who has studied one of my subjects of interest would like to attest to the benefits of the classes in that subject. For example, a philosophy student might share that his philosophy courses have shaped the way he plots his stories, if his characters have perhaps become more existential, or if the questions he deals with in his writings have drifted into deeper realms. Maybe I didn't make this too clear at first, but I didn't want my original post to be too specific because I wanted a broad range of advice. And you gave such good advice. So thanks!

[imthefoolonthehill]

you should major in poverty.

[Wilde woman]

As a lit major and future grad student, I'd say that most people who study literature formally either want to a) do research, b) write criticism, or c) teach literature. I don't know many who study literature because they want to write novels themselves.

I went through a phase in my high school years where I wrote original fiction and poetry (if you could call it that :p), but I quickly realized that it takes far more than just a love of writing and a voracious appetite for books to make one a published novelist. I didn't have what it takes. But if you do, I think you should study what really interests you. If it's literature, so be it. But honestly, I wouldn't want to read a novel written by a literature scholar (criticism - yes, a novel - no); I doubt there would be anything original and compelling in it.


I've consulted the head of each department and they swayed me by reasons such as Classics would make you read some of the finest works and philosophy would give you insight into some of humanity's deepest problems, etc. Which one of the above three, in your opinion, stands out to you as something that would be particularly helpful to an aspiring novelist?

None. The all sound vague and BS-y to me. That's a trap that most liberal arts majors fall into. To be honest, there isn't a high demand for literature majors (especially those with just BAs) in the job market. BUT there are very practical skills you learn from studying literature - writing coherently and persuasively, analyzing arguments, perhaps becoming fluent/literate in foreign languages - that can land you a job. You just have to know how to sell yourself. Or go to grad school...which is what I'm doing. :D

[Delta40]

I don't read alot at all. It seems to be a given that if you are a writer you are therefore a reader. I like reading but I don't consume books and I am not well read at all. I cannot for example join in many of the discussions which run on Lit Net. I'm sure one can qualify as a writer though and not feel handicapped, as if a limb were missing. There are many pools to dip into. Books are one of them - a wonderful resource. Not the only.

[jon1jt]

The answer is probably anything. I know I don't even need a college degree to be a novelist. But hear me out first.

The most logical choice would be literature, since almost all good novelists are voracious readers of fiction. However, I'm taking a literature class now and I hate it for so many reasons. I feel like I'm not learning anything and that I'm paying 5000 dollars in tuition just to read books that I would have read on my own (or already have read). What are your thoughts on this?

I've tried other courses in other departments and my favorites are:
Classics (esp. Latin)
Philosophy
History

I'm having a tough time choosing one of the three because they are all equally interesting to me. I've consulted the head of each department and they swayed me by reasons such as Classics would make you read some of the finest works and philosophy would give you insight into some of humanity's deepest problems, etc. Which one of the above three, in your opinion, stands out to you as something that would be particularly helpful to an aspiring novelist?


Listen I have a secret for you---everybody wants the secret but not everybody is capable of understanding the secret. I like what you're saying here so I'm going to try to help you figure it all out, but I'm not going to give you the answer I'm going to lead you to more questions that will hopefully, in good time, get you to the answer that's right for you. Before I give you the name of the book I want to make sure you don't go online and read one of those crappy reviews like most people do instead of buying the book because the review won't help you, the book will. I'd send it to you but I don't know you and that's a problem. You're going to have to buy it for yourself or better yet use your public library for a change. This book changed my life and it'll change yours too, but only if your figure out the secret. Okay, ready?.............Good luck, and may the force be with you.

What's College For? The Struggle to Define American Higher Education by Zachary Karabell.

Oh, did somebody mention philosophy?

[mayneverhave]

I don't read alot at all. It seems to be a given that if you are a writer you are therefore a reader. I like reading but I don't consume books and I am not well read at all. I cannot for example join in many of the discussions which run on Lit Net. I'm sure one can qualify as a writer though and not feel handicapped, as if a limb were missing. There are many pools to dip into. Books are one of them - a wonderful resource. Not the only.

An analogy you could utilize here is: a football player needs not to watch many other football games in order to play football well or play football at all - just enough to learn the rules of the game.

In writing, however, I would argue that it is not so simple as this. Being well read is not just a status thing that enables us to participate in discussion, but the key to our appreciation of literature. Perhaps one with an all-encompassing and insatiable interested in the literary could gorge themselves on only one or three books and feel satisfied, but for the most part you are going to want to read more and more as your appreciation grows. I'm of the opinion that a legitimate appreciation of artistic writing is a key to creating it.

[JBI]

Reading more isn't necessarily a requirement, though reading more deeply generally is, and for most of us, that means reading more. If one, for instance, were to memorize Shakespeare, and no it inside and out, in addition to a select few other books, one would probably have the range needed to be a great writer.

Unfortunately though, we no longer are an oral society, and the written form is so dominant, that the only way to really get around the problem of creating identity, is to read a wider range of texts, and absorb a little bit of every one, rather than get a full absorption.

[Delta40]

I understand that by reading, I can develop and understand narrative forms. I can't however make myself do more than that which I do. It is about balance really. I won't digest more than I can handle. Creativity be overshadowed!!! idk. What you say sounds.....sound. I won't dispute. I spend time reading the threads here and I am better educated for it.....

[kelby_lake]

The answer is probably anything. I know I don't even need a college degree to be a novelist. But hear me out first.

The most logical choice would be literature, since almost all good novelists are voracious readers of fiction. However, I'm taking a literature class now and I hate it for so many reasons. I feel like I'm not learning anything and that I'm paying 5000 dollars in tuition just to read books that I would have read on my own (or already have read). What are your thoughts on this?

I've tried other courses in other departments and my favorites are:
Classics (esp. Latin)
Philosophy
History

I'm having a tough time choosing one of the three because they are all equally interesting to me. I've consulted the head of each department and they swayed me by reasons such as Classics would make you read some of the finest works and philosophy would give you insight into some of humanity's deepest problems, etc. Which one of the above three, in your opinion, stands out to you as something that would be particularly helpful to an aspiring novelist?




Classics or psychology. Philosophy might be good too.