Learning/teaching yourself to write

[llall]

I'd love to be able to write (poetry or fiction) but I struggle to get started. If I ever do start writing something I'm never happy with it.

Do you have any suggestions? Maybe some useful books I could read?

I've tried writing a diary in the third person just to get some practise bit I'm not sure it's helping.

[Emil Miller]

I'd love to be able to write (poetry or fiction) but I struggle to get started. If I ever do start writing something I'm never happy with it.

Do you have any suggestions? Maybe some useful books I could read?

I've tried writing a diary in the third person just to get some practise bit I'm not sure it's helping.

I'm sure there are books that could help you avoid some of the pitfalls in writing but I don't personally know of any. I discovered how a story is constructed by reading fiction over a long period of time so that when I eventually came to do some writing, I had a reasonable idea of what to do and what to avoid. One absolute necessity is perseverance, so that even when dispirited by lack of inspiration, you feel that it's impossible to continue, the manuscript must always be returned to rather than consigning it permanently to the waste bin.
It's good practice to have some idea of a complete storyline before starting, rather than making it up as you go along. It doesn't have to be perfect but without a decent framework, you will find yourself floundering in the dark; any necessary tightening of the story can be done once its generalised form is in place.
As an example of this, the opening and closing words of one of my novels are the same, as I wanted the story to end as it started.
There may be other ways of writing but that's the way I write.

[PeterL]

There are several components to writing fiction, and they have to come together to some degree for the ficiton to be any good.
There has to be a story with a beginning, middle, and end. I am sure that there are things that you would like to write about, but you will have to turn them into stories first. As the other poster mentioned, reading will show you how.

You have to have at least one character, and creting characters is not easy. Either the character will think and talk like you, or you will learn how to write in a different voice, and that is difficult. The only book that I know of that can help on that is Styles and Structures by Charles Kay Smith. Other wise you will have to imagine the character in great detail.

The third thing is that you will have to write reasonably well. There are authors who aren't very good writers, but knowing how to put your thoughts into writing is a good skill to have in whatever field you will be in. Learning the way that sentences are constructed and expanding your vocabulary will help, but reading and writing will help even more.

Keep at it and within a few decades you might be a good writer.

[stlukesguild]

well... it would seem obvious to me that the best books to help you improve writing are those works of literature you most admire. Other than that... I'm not all that sure of the value of "how to write" books (or even creative writing courses/degrees)... outside of learning certain basic rules of grammar, formal structures, rules for certain types of writing (ie. formal essays, etc...). I would think the best practice for the writer is to simply write... a lot... all the time. I get the feeling that poets and novelists don't waste time studying "how to" guides or wishing that they were poets/novelists... they simply do.

Having said this... I'm a working artist... so I'm in a related creative endeavor... and I have had the benefit of a formal education/training. On the other hand... I was continually drawing/painting continually well before I entered art school, and while a good majority of my classmates who graduated with me no longer make art, I have continued to paint as much as possible. I think motivation and drive are you most important attribute.

[Lykren]

I would think the best practice for the writer is to simply write... a lot... all the time. I get the feeling that poets and novelists don't waste time studying "how to" guides or wishing that they were poets/novelists... they simply do.

My sentiments exactly. There isn't a rule given in formal writing education that can't and hasn't been broken successfully. Time spent working is, I am certain, the only factor benefiting your writing you will have any control over.

[Calidore]

There isn't a rule given in formal writing education that can't and hasn't been broken successfully.

Certainly true, but I'd say that it's good to know the rules and understand why they are, so that when a writer does decide to break one, he knows exactly what he's doing and can argue why in that instance his way works.

[Lykren]

Certainly true, but I'd say that it's good to know the rules and understand why they are, so that when a writer does decide to break one, he knows exactly what he's doing and can argue why in that instance his way works.

This is a point which interests me. Are not rules formed arbitrarily and instinctively, being built up within the individual writer as they spend time applying the basic structures of language? I know some people say that some writing guidelines are necessarily derived from those basic structures, but I don't see how that's the case, when art can be formed which totally perverts the basic, accepted structure of meaning; Jackson Pollock, Gertrude Stein, etc.

EDIT: A saying which perhaps elucidates my thought here goes: "The problem with knowing what you're doing is you don't know what you're doing." Again, since the process of creating art seems to me to be one of refining instinct, as opposed to one of mechanical laws, it would appear that what one is or isn't able to argue is irrelevant; so long as one's work is effective on the level on which it was produced.

[stlukesguild]

This is a point which interests me. Are not rules formed arbitrarily and instinctively, being built up within the individual writer as they spend time applying the basic structures of language? I know some people say that some writing guidelines are necessarily derived from those basic structures, but I don't see how that's the case, when art can be formed which totally perverts the basic, accepted structure of meaning; Jackson Pollock, Gertrude Stein, etc.

But even Jackson Pollock was aware of the "rules". He studied painting under Thomas Hart Benton... and with Hans Hoffmann... who was a strict Formalist... at the Art Student's League in NY. His drip paintings were inspired by three distinct traditions very much removed from the tradition of Western painting up until that time: the "Automatic Painting" of Surrealism, the Rorschach ink blots... and psychoanalysis... loosely related to the ideas of the subconscious raised by the Surrealists... and the Native American sand painting.

[PeterL]

This is a point which interests me. Are not rules formed arbitrarily and instinctively, being built up within the individual writer as they spend time applying the basic structures of language? I know some people say that some writing guidelines are necessarily derived from those basic structures, but I don't see how that's the case, when art can be formed which totally perverts the basic, accepted structure of meaning; Jackson Pollock, Gertrude Stein, etc.

I don't remember who did the research, or where, but I believe that language and the rules of grammar are built into human brains. Grammar consists of many of the known rules of the logic that rules the brain and how it processes information. There are some style rules that are not part of that, but the basic organization of sentences, parts of speech, preposition and object, etc. relationships are part of the logical structure. A large part of Semiotics is an attempt to figure out what is built in and how that works. Some people have investigated the semiotic systems of animals to further that. When someone violates one of the basic rules of grammar, the hearer or reader is surprised and pays close attention, because soemthing has to be considered carefully: either the speaker did it intentionally and there is meaning hidden in the error, or the speaker made a mistake and clarification is required.

If you are interested in the logical of natural language, then look into it. I find it an interesting matter, and there is a fair amount of literature about it.

[Lykren]

I didn't mean to say that Pollock was unaware of and unversed in various traditions, but that his particular, peculiar amalgam of them was something which fit comfortably into none of them.


When someone violates one of the basic rules of grammar, the hearer or reader is surprised and pays close attention, because soemthing has to be considered carefully: either the speaker did it intentionally and there is meaning hidden in the error, or the speaker made a mistake and clarification is required.



Interesting. But, how can the perceiver make such a distinction between intentional and unintentional statements?

[PeterL]

Interesting. But, how can the perceiver make such a distinction between intentional and unintentional statements?

The perceiivver can't. That's why the hearer or reader has to pay attention to what comes next. The speaker has to say something to clarify the mistake. If that doesn't happen, then the hearer has to ask.

Then there are the people who don't know how to speak. One of those may say almost anything, and the hearer has to figure out that the speaker just cna't speak.

[namenlose]

I think studying one's literary precursors and favorite authors tends to be a great step in developing one's own writing abilities. Furthermore, other reccomendation I believe to be worthy of note is to read literary theory in accompaniment to the material you'll be delving into, since it can be of great help in learning the foundations of literary composition.

I'm also in agreement with the idea that understanding the tradition you are working in or drawing your influences from is of great importance to establish your own creative abilities. Although it's not exactly necessary and I've found a few amateur authors which accomplished astonishing achievements even though they knew very little of their precursors, it's not only a rare phenomenon, but also a great risk.

The idea that working outside the tradition leads to originality is an enormous misconception. It's more likely such behaviour will lead one to repeat old formulas without knowing he is doing so. Moreover, it's also a very limiting position, as the writer would have far less to work with to acquire his aesthetic eminence, or even to know what this aesthetic eminence should be like.

[Emil Miller]

Reading these posts reminds me to add that it's important not to write beyond one's capabilities. There is no point in trying to write like long established literary masters, no matter how impressed one is by their work. That doesn't mean that a writer needn't be diverting without being trivial, but that a good book is worth reading even if it's not the earth shaking tome dreamed of by would be writers of great literature.

[Lykren]

Good point Emil. It's a common issue early into one's development as a writer that the writing feels 'strained' and overly dramatic. I feel, though, that this issue also is one that cannot be simply explained to inexperienced authors, but one that must be worked through for oneself.

[Emil Miller]

Good point Emil. It's a common issue early into one's development as a writer that the writing feels 'strained' and overly dramatic. I feel, though, that this issue also is one that cannot be simply explained to inexperienced authors, but one that must be worked through for oneself.

I think this is true of many attempts at writing but 'trying too hard' isn't easy to avoid if one is hoping to set the world on fire, and I think it generally applies to younger writers who are keen to make their mark. It's not uncommon to read of established authors who were ashamed of their first effort when viewed from a more experienced vantage point. It takes a lot of hard work to attain the ease of style that good authors often have, so patience and commitment are required apart from considerations of a purely technical nature.

[hillwalker]

Poetry - 'The Ode Less Travelled' by Stephen Fry is an amusing guide to all the various poetic forms with some exercises to keep you awake.

Prose - 'On Writing' by Stephen King is also interesting as well as informative and gives an insight to the working life of a best-selling writer.

But most of all - READ 10 times as much as you write. Most of us learn by example - then realise we can do as well if not better than some of the dross that's out there.

H

[Calidore]

I don't remember who did the research, or where, but I believe that language and the rules of grammar are built into human brains. Grammar consists of many of the known rules of the logic that rules the brain and how it processes information. There are some style rules that are not part of that, but the basic organization of sentences, parts of speech, preposition and object, etc. relationships are part of the logical structure. A large part of Semiotics is an attempt to figure out what is built in and how that works. Some people have investigated the semiotic systems of animals to further that. When someone violates one of the basic rules of grammar, the hearer or reader is surprised and pays close attention, because soemthing has to be considered carefully: either the speaker did it intentionally and there is meaning hidden in the error, or the speaker made a mistake and clarification is required.

If you are interested in the logical of natural language, then look into it. I find it an interesting matter, and there is a fair amount of literature about it.

I can kind of see that, since when we listen to amateur music, even if we're unfamiliar with a particular piece or the "rules" of music, we can recognize a bum note if we hear it. An accomplished composer like Peter Schickele can even use bum notes deliberately for comedic effect, as in his P.D.Q. Bach pieces.

On the other hand, language is more complex than music, and there are so many different forms of grammar--every language has small to large variances from every other one--while our brains all share a common structure, that I don't see how the languages can all be following a similar pattern.

[Lykren]

I heard recently about an indigenous south American tribe found to have a language which did not obey certain rules of grammar, formulated by Chomsky, previously considered to be universal. I don't know the details, but I think the differences meant they couldn't form complex sentences in their language. I also have heard of an African tribe which has no rules or words relating to time.

Anyway, the upshot is, that i think language 'rules' are subject to context, and as such, they cannot be expressed, let alone followed, with precision. Therefore, I think reading widely to gather context, and writing often to practice forming and shaping that context to suit one's inner life, is what is necessary to become a good writer.

A side-point - what makes you say that language is more complex than music, Calidore?

[PeterL]

I can kind of see that, since when we listen to amateur music, even if we're unfamiliar with a particular piece or the "rules" of music, we can recognize a bum note if we hear it. An accomplished composer like Peter Schickele can even use bum notes deliberately for comedic effect, as in his P.D.Q. Bach pieces.

On the other hand, language is more complex than music, and there are so many different forms of grammar--every language has small to large variances from every other one--while our brains all share a common structure, that I don't see how the languages can all be following a similar pattern.

The rules are built into the brain in a way that is analogous to the organization of diodes in a computer chip, and the software has to take that into consideration. Just as a computer can't work with programming that doesn't work, the human brain can't work with language that doesn't fit the hardware.

Please remember that is an analogy.

[PeterL]

I heard recently about an indigenous south American tribe found to have a language which did not obey certain rules of grammar, formulated by Chomsky, previously considered to be universal. I don't know the details, but I think the differences meant they couldn't form complex sentences in their language. I also have heard of an African tribe which has no rules or words relating to time.


I think that means that the rules made up were inaccurate. There are other odd cultures: The Trobriand islanders don't recognise lines, nor do they state causes and effects. And there are languages that don't have a verb that answers for "to be".

[Lykren]

How could such cultures communicate at all, if their languages deviated from 'universal' patterns? Furthermore, certain aspects of communication are in fact universal, such as facial expression. Why are they then uniformly followed, and not supposedly inherent structures of language?

Essentially, how could there be rules made up at all, which were inaccurate according to higher-level rules? I think the point is that if the mind can imagine and make use of concepts outside certain 'rules', then those rules aren't really of any use anyways, no?

[krishna_lit]

Buddy, watch lot of movies. let me be more clear. Select a topic, sit and research over the internet, read quotes on that topic, and you will get some idea abt it by then, then search for some movies made on the topic and watch them. So, now when you watch them you will get an all new perspective, probably the director's perspective. Then analyze the variations of it with the topic's reality as you've read a bit abt it, or in case if u didn't like the film's plot COME UP WITH YOUR OWN VERSION. And, there you are, with a STORY to write, huh!!

This approach might sometimes help. Just give it a try for some interesting topic!

[xtianfriborg13]

I'm struggling with the same dilemma! Thank God I found this thread. Really helped me a lot.