What makes a good writer ?

[pattricia]

Just been watching The Book Review programme on tv. The question was put to Phillip Ross, as to what makes a good writer. His answer was " that you have to be interested in what you are writing about .

I think thats a fair comment, and goes for anything even a simple post on SF dont you ?

[Ron Blanco]

Hello Patricia,

 

That is a very interesting question. Here are my thoughts.

 

In terms of fiction, a writer has to find a way of connecting with the reader.

 

I think it is also relevant to ask ourselves the question "What is my favourite book?" and for us to consider what makes it special. My own favourite is "Psmith in the City" by PG Wodehouse. I like the character of Psmith, and in this story his interraction with an odious bank manager is particularly entertaining.

 

So the choice of character and setting seems important. But the skill in connecting with the reader is probably more subtle. I listened to a talk by author Carole Burns yesterday, entitled 'intimate details'. She convinced me that much of the connection with our readers is achieved by showing them specific and personal details about our characters.

[De Batz]

That idea about being interested about your subject is true in a much wider sense: if you're interested, people will find you interesting.

 

I've found that the transition from being amateurish to amateur in my writing has largely consisted in practice, but you do require a certain honesty in reviewing what you've produced to improve. They say (on Radio 4, about classical musicians) that you need to put 10000 hours of committed effort into a discipline to become really good at it. I suspect that I'm no more than a tenth of the way there when it comes to writing. (Better at maths: 3 hours a day for ten years, ish.)

 

As with most things, a talent for writing is what people who don't have it blame for their inability to do the thing. Very few prodigies didn't have a huge amount of disciplined input into their development. Having said all of that (which sounds depressingly off-putting), I'd say the key to being a good writer is to enjoy your writing. I don't necessarily mean that every word you write will be suffused with glee, but that you won't get very far if writing is a chore.

 

Although it will be worth remembering that I am not sitting on a cupboard full of Bookers or a fat bank account...

 

Andy

[Ian Rivedon]

Pattricia,

 

I agree totally with Ron Blanco and De Batz. However, the more I become immersed within the literary world, the more I realise that extensive, and selective reading is essential to good becoming a good writer. After almost three years of writing, and committed reading, I'm becoming aware of 'literary mechanics' that make a narrative 'work'. Extensive reading reveals how various writers utilise these mechanics, and identifying them within the work of the greatest writers is a most satisfying, and rewarding occupation. Having said that, even the best mechanics (real engineers, that is) do not always necessarily end up creating a Bugatti. However, most could build a working automobile from a pile of components, and the end result of some might well be marketable. What is certain though, is that infinite creativity without mechanical skill and know-how might result in something that looks like an automobile, but which hasn't a cat in hell's chance of going anywhere.

 

It's the skill of the mechanic that adds that vital 'something' that makes an automobile work. Mechanics have to learn their trade, as writers must, too. As far as I am aware, there are no shortcuts. You just have to work hard, and write and read as much as your lifestyle permits. I don't think there's any other way.

 

I hope the above makes sense. I've decided to commit to doing the hard work and learning my 'trade'. Reading is a most useful, and pleasurable part of that process.

 

IR

[De Batz]

Ian, that brings up an interesting further thought: could you actually drive a Bugatti if the opportunity arose? I've never even driven anything with rear-wheel drive, so I'd be in a tree or a wall within seconds.

 

And what's your reaction to the bloke who gets out of the Lamborghini as it pulls up outside a cafe? Similar to many people's reaction the first time they try to read James Joyce (that is, unprintable...)?

[Ian Rivedon]

De Batz,

From a personal perspective, the literary equivalent of a Bugatti would be Sterne's Tristram Shandy. Difficult to handle at first, but once you get used to it, puts a broad grin on your face, and once it's finished you can't wait to have another go.

 

I can see what you mean regarding Joyce, particularly Ulysses. however, I would equate that novel to any automobile having a Wankel rotary engine. That is, it works in a fashion, but is completely pointless and nobody has a clue about it, except for its designer.

 

IR

[De Batz]

The number of people on internet forums - this one is not a particular offender - who post a single word in reply to a complex, nuanced question is astonishing. It is as though they read the first line of the first post, thought 'I know how to solve this guy's problem!' and presumably felt that once their answer made it out into cyberspace, the problem was indeed solved.

 

One suspects this is a symptom of a problem of lack of (real) interest. People seem to post because they can, not because they've got anything to say, and not because they've any interest in the discussion...

 

Does being a troll count as being interested, I wonder?

[Ron Blanco]

Going back to Patricia's question, De Batz and Ian, could you say James Joyce was a good writer?

 

He has managed to connect with 'an' audience of readers, even though not everyone likes his writing. So he passes that test, as does JK.

 

DB, posting comments on forums requires slightly different skills doesn't it? But perhaps even in that context, one aim might still be to connect with readers. Somebody might post a provocative comment that stimulates further discussion or causes someone to reveal something they wouldn't otherwise have done. That could be seen as good writing, within that context.

[Ian Rivedon]

I like James Joyce's work, in fact Dubliners is one of my favourite books. However, as hard as I try I just cannot finish reading Ulysses. I find little within it to sustain my interest, and though it is undoubtedly a great work, and well written, Joyce is undoubtedly guilty of at least a little self indulgence. If you compare Ulysses with Tristram Shandy, which is also a great work, and similarly covers just a very short period of time, Sterne, unlike Joyce, despite extreme verbosity and divergence, never loses sight of the fact that he is writing for the singular benefit and enjoyment of his readers.

 

Joyce was not the first, or the last serious writer to have (occasionally) suffered from egocentricity.

 

IR