Do writers get better? · 1:55am Mar 14th, 2013
Recently I heard an author give advice I've heard many authors give: "Just keep writing, and you'll get better."
Is that true?
I can think of painters who got better over time, like Picasso and Van Gogh. I can think of bands and composers who got markedly better, at least for a while, like Beethoven, the Beatles, Leonard Cohen, Pink Floyd, and Sting. But I can only think of a few writers who got better with time: Mark Twain, Jack London, and Tom Stoppard. Bookplayer, GoH, and toafan say Terry Pratchett has improved, and I defer to their authority on Pratchett, so add him too. This is still so few that the most likely explanation for their improvement is chance, or poor judgement on my part.
I can think of plenty who wrote an early breakout work and then never rivaled it: Lorraine Hansberry, J.D. Salinger, S.E. Hinton, Stephen Crane, Jorge Luis Borges, Douglas Adams. I can think of plenty who wrote consistently over their careers from the time they published their first book: John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, C. S. Lewis, Ray Bradbury, Tom Clancy. I can think of many who got worse: James Joyce, E.E. Cummings, William Burroughs, Kurt Vonnegut, Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov. The first story Robert Heinlein ever wrote was about as good as anything he ever wrote. John Kennedy Toole won the Pulitzer for his first (and last) novel.
More writers get worse than get better once they've been published. Why?
My theory is that people don't get any better at anything than they have to be to stop being confronted with failure. This is why Keannu Reaves is still a bad actor, and so many athletes and beautiful women are poor thinkers.
Writing isn't like juggling or riding a bicycle. You can't tell whether you did it well. Maybe it's like non-contact martial arts. You can spend years kicking the air, but if you never hit anybody, you might be doing it all wrong.
(If you're getting EqD rejections for poor grammar, this and what follows don't apply to you yet. Someone points out your mistakes; you learn the rules; you stop making those mistakes. Simple. Do it and move on. Knowing proper grammar is part of storytelling only to the extent that bricklaying is part of architecture.)
In writing, I'm trying to strike you, dear reader, though not always to hurt you. The comments let me know what I hit. Most writers stop workshopping and reading reviews of their works soon after they get published, and they hear little from their readers, which may be why they stop getting better.
But even this advantage over professional writers isn't enough for me. Even where I can detect that I've failed, like ALL MY DIALOGUE TAGS AND DESCRIPTION ALL THE TIME, I don't know how to improve.
There are four basic learning methods: Example, logic, gradient search, and evolution. By example means you watch someone else and do what they do. It's fast! Logic means you model what you're doing to predict things that might work better. It's not quite as fast. Gradient search means you can tell whether changing things a little more one way or the other along one dimension will make things better or worse. It's quick to improve along dimensions that you're already aware of, but seldom produces anything surprising. Evolution means you change things randomly and splice together combinations of things that worked well. It's super-slow, but is the most powerful, if you can tell whether something is good or bad.
I use all four methods to try to improve my writing. I feel like I'm learning all the time. But mostly, I'm learning how to do better the things I already do well, like plotting. I'm aware of those; I can see whether I failed or did well. The things I do poorly, I don't improve on, because they're a mystery to me. Even when I see where someone else has done it well, I can't put my finger on what makes it better.
The stories I write now are much better than the ones I wrote 20 years ago, but not obviously better than the ones I wrote 15 years ago. The first two pony stories I wrote, both over a year ago, were "A Carrot for Miss Fluttershy" and "Friends, With Occasional Magic." They seem to me to be as good as anything I've written lately.
It's hard to tell because they're dead to me. I re-read part of "Moving On" today, and it seems fake. The dialogue seems forced; the settings like scenery drawn with markers on cardboard for a grade-school play. Same for "Fluttershy's NIght Out" and "Twenty Minutes". I can see the strings on my puppets. I can't laugh at my comedies or feel anything from my sadfics. The main reason I think they're any good is that people whose stories I like sometimes tell me they are. Another is that I keep reading books on writing, and have the naive faith that they must be doing me some good, though when I try to recall what they said I usually can't remember. (The third reason is my enormous ego.)
Can writers get better? If so, how?
I wish I could help you, but I haven't published my stories yet- and have no experience to share with you.
But there are 2 aspects to that. Writing better (compelling voice) and writing better stories (compelling narrative).
Coming up with a good idea is a fickle thing and can't really be improved as one's ideas are a part of their identity and personality and experiences.
As for writing that story, whatever it may be...
There's a difference between getting better and changing.
Getting better is staying the same but using greater skill and technique.
Changing is altering something fundamental about how you do something, with possibly varied results.
I would say it is easy to become a better writer of a spscific story as you progress and revise.
But it is not easy to become a better writer of stories period and there is too much change between projects, genres, and styles to predict the outcomes of these changes.
One author I would use as example is Dean Koontz.
Koontz started out with OK stories that just got better and better (with some exceptions) until he significantly changed his motivations to preach rather than storytell.
I think most writers do get better. From the examples of writers who got worse, for example, I would take strong exception with any suggestion that Asimov or Vonnegut wrote their best works at the very beginnings of their careers. Let's use Asimov as an example, since I'm probably better versed in him than most of the other authors on the list: I'd argue that his best works, in no particular order, are Nightfall, the original Foundation Trilogy, The Gods Themselves, Nemesis, and his short stories The Bicentennial Man and The Life and Times of Multivac. While the Foundation stories and Nightfall were both early in his career (Nightfall was his breakthrough story, after all), the rest all came in the '70s and early '80s. It's during that time that I'd argue he did his best work, some two decades after he first became famous.
Now, that's not to say that the quality of his stories was an unending upward arc. You would be hard pressed, for example, to find people who like the later Foundation books more than the originals (I assume they must exist, although I confess that I've never seen one). But my point is that although he did get worse late in his career, that was preceded by a period where his stories went from being, essentially, nothing more than elaborate setups for dubious "punchlines" to a writing period marked by much more satisfying and complex narratives.
I suspect the reason he got worse towards the end (and this applies to at least some of the authors on your "got worse" list, as well as some other famous ones like Stephen King) is because he eventually didn't have anyone to tell him that he had a stupid idea. The concept of "protection from editors" is well-known; an author gets famous enough that printing their books is tantamount to printing money, so its no longer in a publisher's financial interest to waste time and energy vetting the product (and risk ticking off their cash cow, to boot). But more than that, it's a lot easier for friends, pre-readers, and family to tell someone that they're being preachy, that the plot is a muddle, or whatever when that person isn't sitting on a stash containing nearly every award that a sci-fi writer can earn. THAT is what I am most inclined to blame for the drop in quality.
So, to sum it up: I absolutely think that most writers improve with practice, even at the professional level. I also think that it becomes increasingly difficult for authors to get the feedback, advice, and other assistance necessary to reach their greatest potential as their fame increases--and it simultaneously becomes easier to ignore that assistance if it IS given.
Yes, writers get better. I can recall specific stories, at time specific points within those stories, where my writing specifically improved. Typically, it's because I learned by example, adopting things from what I read.
One of those stories where I see clear, obvious improvement is my most recent, The Lavender Letter. It currently stands as the best thing I've ever written.
But how do we improve? Well, that's going to depend on the writer, in great degree. My means to improvement, so far as I can tell, is reading; seeing how other, demonstrably better authors do things with words, and wrapping my head around it to add tools to my box. Thing of it for me is that most of this is unconscious, though in my time spent editing and talking with other authors here on Fimfic I've gotten pretty good at seeing what I do after the fact. I don't expect this is terribly helpful, so I'm gonna put style aside, and wax a little philosophical instead.
Writers, like any artists, improve by choice.
You have to want it. Not just think about it, or bemoan the state of things, but really reach down into yourself and want to push higher. Demand better; not just of yourself, but of the stories that come to you. I say this mostly because of what I read here:
Now, disclaimer: I'm about rampantly assume and speak from there.
It sounds like you've fallen into writing formulas, instead of stories. Use plot thread X, character interaction dynamic Y, insert twist Z after requisite wordcount. It's like writing an essay; references this many times, argument with such proof, so forth. None of this breathes. It's dry, dead, and empty.
I would be speaking from experience here, because years of that dead academic writing killed my creative drive, and I stopped writing fiction entirely; until I found ponies, and read authors like Device Heretic and Varanus and Cold in Gardez, and their writing reached into me and pulled that dying ember up for air, whence it sprang to blazing life again.
My point being that I can't write things if they're dead, as it seems to me you're finding as well. The story needs to be alive. The characters need to live and breathe, they need to laugh and cry and sometimes get angry, and all these things have to be because of who they are, not who the story frame says they should be.
In brief summary, the way I improve is by finding new ways to say things, and the way I say things is by listening to the story in my head and doing my best to capture it. Not through formula or structure; just rendering the feelings with as much reality as possible. Letting it breathe outside, so it can tell itself to others like it did to me.
Well, that went a bit tangential. I suppose what I'm trying to say is maybe you're trying to force too much? I don't know that you write like I do - I don't know that anyone does, really - but I would suggest taking a moment to listen to the story, see if what you're writing and what it wants to say are lining up. Because the few times I've ignored the story and written myself, it's ended up being empty puppetry for me, too.
Finally, re: Moving On...it does have its issues. To the point that after reading it, I couldn't quite sleep until I wrote down everything my subconscious didn't like about it. If you wanted to see some of that, if talking it out might be worth something, just give me a shout.
I agree with the things you've said. Most authors don't improve once they're published. They get mostly positive feedback, and pretty much ignore all criticisms. They stagnate. When it comes to fanfiction writing, though, these are mostly amateur writers, so I imagine the urging to keep it up is helpful. They're getting lots of criticism (hopefully) that they're taking to heart. Obviously, it's not the act of writing itself that improves your skill, but learning what does and doesn't work from feedback. When you reach a point where you don't care about feedback, and your audience eats up anything you write, I think it's almost impossible not to stagnate, especially if it's your career. Why gamble with new, experimental work when your old shit will give you a steady income?
But, I have to say: Most women are terrible lovers? Uh, I'm sorry, what the fuck is this shit you're spouting? I don't know any men or women who would say that "most women" they have been with are terrible lovers. I mean. holy crap. There is nothing to back this up. It's just a sweeping statement of...of fucking WRONG. If you've got some sort of census data to back this up, feel free to prove me wrong.
916837 But, I have to say: Most women are terrible lovers? Uh, I'm sorry, what the fuck is this shit you're spouting?
I'm glad someone was paying attention! Just my personal experience. Most women make little effort in bed. Sample size is large enough to reach publishable statistical significance. To publish, however, I would have to re-do the experiment with a random sample.
Maybe most men are the same. I wouldn't know. Anyway, I was trying to relate that to gender differences in motivation to perform, but now that I think about it, that doesn't make any sense. So, forget I said it.
Let me take a shot at it. Writing is Escapism
I have a job. I write ponies. One I do for money, the other I do for fun. When I'm working, I dream of a far-off land filled with colorful, loving ponies. (Okay, you can laugh it up now) When I get home, I write down my dreams. If I won a couple million dollars, (because just one mil would not cover my spending plans :) I would most likely still write ponies. Although from a laptop on the beach, with a little drink with an umbrella in it. Held by my servant. Who also would have a servant with a drink. (Hey, I dream big)
Most of the big one-shot authors (I'm guessing) had their Magnum Opus carefully built, polished, edited, groomed and lovingly printed in manuscript for *years* before they sold it. And suddenly the publisher is standing there, holding a check and saying "Six months, and by the way you need to tour." Now their escape becomes their job, and the call of M. Bourbon becomes strong....
I've become a fan of Scalzi and Hoyt , not necessarily from their books, but from their writing about books and writing. Also John Ringo although more for his writing than his blogging. (Although I can't imagine a Posleen/MLP crossover, even though I wrote a Bolo one)
916824
I think Chris hit it on the head. Professional authors suffer from a lack of constructive criticism after a certain point. Given that this is true, it should be possible to continue improving if they continue to get honest feedback.
916872
Wow, this makes me sad for you.
916872
If that's the case, and the women are making little effort in bed (and not because you're denying a fetish or something of the like that would make most sex terrible, which does happen from time to time), there are two explanations:
1. You're with selfish lovers. This is not okay, talk to them about it. Your needs are not being satisfied in bed. You can't expect to have a decent sexual relationship without a constant open dialogue about it.
2. The women you're with don't know they're doing wrong. If they don't know they're doing wrong, if they hear you grunting and groaning and seeming quite into it, of course they aren't going to do anything else! They think they're satisfying you! Once again, this is something that has to be discussed, nicely. Tell them that when they just lay there, it makes you feel like they're not into it. Tell them it would be better if they took initiative every so often. Man or woman, feeling wanted is important.
Keep in mind, if they genuinely think they'r pleasing you, it's not their fault they're bad! You have to tell them something is wrong, or how are they going to know?
916872
Yeah, it's pretty much just everyone. No one's willing to put out the effort to get better. Sex is too stigmatized to allow the majority to do anything other than exactly what they've always done, forever, which allows just about zero room for improvement. Not to mention that everyone is different, and I imagine that getting to the point of knowing how to please everyone would require quite a lot of practice that, again, most people are not willing to put into it.
Of course, this is all just me talking out of my ass after twenty minutes of research. Take it as you will.
(But yeah, I do think it was a pretty awful thing to say. I'm not exactly appalled, but I sure as hell don't approve.)
Braggart
I think the reason you see published authors get worse as their careers go on is due to what TVtropes calls "Death of the Editor."
Once you become a popular and well liked author, you stop listening to your editors when they tell you you're wrong. Unfortunately, editors are often a major contributor to a stories quality. Plenty of people on this site will cite their pre-readers as helping them make their stories readable. (I recall Ghost's interview recently.)
I have seen authors on this site improve, sometimes drastically, between stories. Moreso than I have seen them get worse. There does seem to be a ceiling for this though. Once someone has found their niche, the amount of improvement, if any, tends to be relatively small.
916906 No need to feel sad for me on that account.
916910 I didn't say the sex was bad. I mean that most women leave everything up to the man. I guess it's like saying most women are bad at dancing because they only follow. I've tried following in dancing, and it turns out that it isn't that easy. So I could be completely wrong.
916912 I thought it was an awful thing to say, too, but kind of funny. Now I have feedback, and can improve!
(Disclaimer: I feel like such a poser saying anything about writing well that doesn't have to do with characterization. I know that any given person reading this is probably thinking I have no room to talk. But I really wanted to get this first part in, and I felt bad about doing that without saying something about Bad Horse's question.)
I have to point out that the question of whether a writer- or any artist- has improved is a matter of opinion. I think Terry Pratchett has greatly improved over the course of the Discworld books (I feel like he really hit his stride with Small Gods. Before that there tend to be strange asides and subplots that I don't think work with the main story.) But I also think he's gone slightly down hill since Monstrous Regiment (with the exception of the Tiffany Aching books, actually). This is just my opinion, other people might have a totally different one!
So I think once you reach a level of competence, there's no such thing as improvement, because there's no such thing as "good." There's trying new things, some of which work and some don't, but those will all be subject to what your audience likes. Things you, as an author, don't think worked might the be most popular thing you'll write. They aren't bad because you didn't like them, or good because other people did. Look at the classics- some of them are very poorly written in some way or another. Most of them contain some style choice that would never fly today. And many people will not like any given work of literature, classic or not.
Now, I'm talking in general there. The question you seem to be looking at is: "can you improve in your own (or another individual) opinion?" There, the answer is "Yes, but don't expect most people to like it better." What you think is a problem with your work might be what someone else loves.
As to how you do it, what's worked for me in areas I'm not so good at was, basically, deciding that I was doing it wrong. These days I generally admit that if other people don't like something about my writing, it's because I don't care about that. When I realized how bad my pacing was in a story last fall, I decided I wasn't going to do that anymore, and I started outlining stories and making myself pay some attention to how they were balanced. If I wanted to write beautiful descriptions I'd figure out how to write them, but I still hate descriptions, so that's not going to happen.
But the hardest part of that was admitting that what I had been doing wasn't working for me, and I could do something else if I wanted to. I came up with that "something else" based on a combination of example and logic, though by "example" I mean watching other people write stories, and asking for help during the writing of my own, not just reading the finished product or their opinion of my finished product. For me it was a matter of figuring out what they were doing, applying my own thoughts on what I was going for, and doing it while getting their thoughts on what I was doing. I'm not claiming to be a good writer, but I'm liking my stuff more these days, in general.
I like how this comment thread has gone from writing to sex. I'd say the two are pretty much the same.
I'd say more, but I forgot. I was thinking about sex.
Now, please excuse my while my servant brings me a mimosa.
Oh--wait. We were talking about writing. I think that one can improve. I've seen changes in my writing style for the better (I hope) since I first published online. I think that sites like this one may help, since (even those of us who are fortunate enough to have been published before) we will all receive our share of flak. The important part is to separate the good advice from the bad, and make steps in that direction.
For me, my stories tend to be very character-driven. I'm sometimes surprised by what they do (no, really, I'm not kidding). I usually don't have a well-written story outline (if I have one at all), Just a general idea of where the story's gonna go, and how to get there. For me, it's the technical bits I get tangled up in (like commas, the bane of my existence).
Still, we are limited by our own personal experience. That lump of tapioca in our skulls will produce or it won't. It's kind of like an athlete--all the practice in the world can't overcome the limitations of the human body.
My best advice, I guess, is find your loudest critic, and listen to him carefully. Think about what he says.
That's probably the smartest thing I did on Celestia Sleeps In <--shameless plug.
As to the sex, I'm not sure I can help you. My experience, sadly, is statistically irrelevant.
Gotta go, my servant's got another mimosa.
We will always be bound by certain laws and personality traits, unfortunatley.
What you can do is simply roll the dice again, and write a new story completely different from the norm for you.
Simply write, look at the writer's guide, and manually fix the problems.
Repeat.
First of all, Bad Horse, mate, I'm something of an expert on Bad Horse fiction, and...you haven't improved? Seriously? Seriously? Now you have to compare like with like -- go on, compare something like 'The Detective and the Magician' to 'Moving On' (both being longer form works). Your characterization's improved loads, just for starters. Why d'you think I keep bothering your for a sequel to 'The Detective and the Magician?' I want to see what New Bad Horse (a creature much more pleasant to hang around than New Fluttershy) does with those characters and ideas.
Second, regarding Terry Pratchett. Now Sir Pterry is a writer I really like[1] but he does not write on constant level. Not by a longshot. The Colour of Magic might as well be written by an entirely different author -- compare it with, say, Going Postal. Aside from footnotes, there are tremendous differences in style, tone, charcterization, setting... And, to me at least, those were all positive changes. I feel I could write The Colour of Magic given sufficient runup. Going Postal? Not bloody likely.
[1] Anyone surprised? No? Didn't think so.
And lastly...um...me. I don't know if this is arrogance or what, but I honestly think I got better at this writing business. A Canterlot Carol is a different sort of beast than Whom The Princesses Would Destroy... The thematic elements are more assured, the characterization more careful, the tone more consistent. A lot of good elements of WTPWD are happy coincidences or wild flights of fancy that worked out against te odds. If you liked anything in ACC -- I meant that[2]. So. Did I improve? Writers are notoriously bad at judging themselves. It could all be ego. Am I sliding downwards into irrelevance?
Well now I'm terrified...
[2] On the flip side -- if you didn't, I probably meant that too. Sorry.
916939
Oh, yes, that's the number one cause of Authorial Rot, I think -- no editor. The thing about writing is that it is very much building a house of cards. Using wisps of smoke as your work surface. When you write in seclusion, and most writers do, you don't know if you are writing something that will resonate with your reader or not. You've only yourself to measure things against, and as a result can stray further and further from true, like an improperly treated blade, and what used to be the charming peculiarities of your style become more and more cartoonishly exaggerated. In the end, you write self-indulgent self-parody.
Editors prevent this by providing a constant unyielding surface to react against. It's not just the grammar, or kvetches about style -- an editor is supposed to ask the sort of uncomfortable questions that reveal gaps in your thinking or your blind spots or your biases. So, my writerly friends, love your pre-readers. They are all that stand between you and the abyss.
On writing: an artist spends five years learning how to paint; he spends the rest of his life learning how to paint with meaning.
On sex: if you're not communicating your desires and inviting your partner to do the same, neither of you is going to end up happy. Expecting a man or woman to immediately throw themselves headlong and completely openly into a sexual encounter is, quite frankly, a bit naive.
Yeah, that. Every one of my editors--every one--says "why did you say this?" That's why I have them. If I can't justify it, out it goes.
Excuse me while I have another mimosa.
917111
You, fine sir, have earned yourself another follower, if for no other reason than your comment was better-written than anything I have ever produced. Full stop.
EDIT: I am going to quote your house-of-cards-built-on-wisps-of-smoke metaphor forever and forever. It is the single best description of the craft of writing ever.
Ahh, if only I knew. I love reading, yet writing seems to elude me. At times I can write for hours, when inspired. Although if I try to sit and write, I just don't like my work. I just finished my first story, and I feel like it was not worth it. 34 views for 3 months worth of work(more like, 3 days spread over 3 months) really made me disappointed in myself. I did not expect to have any number of views or for it to be well received. Yet I still feel disappointed in myself. I wish I knew a sure-fire way to make myself a better writer; all I have found is read more, write more. Which is especially hard when faced with disappointment consistently.
917134 Thanks! I'd remembered to talk about writing and sex, but somehow I'd forgotten alcohol. My blog would be more popular if I always focused it on sex, drugs, and writing. Next week: Best stimulants to use while writing clop.
917148
Well that depends on the style you are going for, yes? If you want suave and sophisticated surely a gentleman's martini -- extra dry. No. Drier. Drier. Winston Churchill dry. You are supposed to sip straight gin while looking at a bottle of vermouth from across the room.
917148
I don't know if loneliness and self-pity count as stimulants. I'm pretty sure they're technically depressants.
My muse hides on the bottom of a bottle of Vodka. When I drink enough, she comes out. It's kind of like adult Cracker Jacks, but with liver damage instead of popcorn.
I try to edit in a sober-enough-to-hold-a-pen mode. No promises on comments.
917157
IMHO, it's better if the vermouth is farther away. Like, in the next county (or whatever they have in Jolly Old England). Also, gulping rather than sipping is often an improvement.
917139 My thoughts:
- You wrote "This my first fic of any kind" in your story's description. That's like saying "WARNING: Do not read this story."
- My first story on fimfiction was good enough that it was eventually reviewed by Seattle's Angels, but it also got only about 30 views in the months after I posted it.
- You wouldn't post the first drawing you ever made on deviantart and then be disappointed that no one favorited it. It's unreasonable for anyone to expect their first story to be very good. That's like picking up the violin for the first time and getting discouraged after a month. It's kind of a slap in the face to people who've been writing for years to complain that you're not getting it after a few months--it implies that what they do is easy enough that you should be able to do it after a few months.
- Social networking is a factor in how many views you get. So is putting it in groups and choosing a catchy title. So is luck.
Side note.
I used to be fairly awful at dialogue, but for some reason, learning to use sockpuppets online has really improved it.
Try not-fiction writing as a break. Stretch your limits and all that - it's not practice if you aren't comfortable with it.
My first few alts (on Reddit by the way) were pretty transparent, but now even the most outrageous acts from them are accepted as consistent.
Everyone's being wordy here. I don't want to be wordy. There's too much to read already. Third time through responding, let's see if I can hit my mark.
---------------------------------------------------
In writing more than in some arts, there is a limiting function for how much authors can improve – along a particular axis. Part of writing, the craft of it, depends on an author's ability to create something beautiful while conforming to a set of parameters. Writing shares this with musical performance and coloring inside the lines. You can only be so good with words. Sentences can be optimized.
Think for a moment. You recognize this fact instinctively. When you read a sentence, you judge it, and you feel your judgment has an existential merit. This sentence serves its purpose, or not. For its purpose, this sentence is more efficient than other candidate sentences. This sentence is maximally efficient.
Published authors all have the sentence optimization skill. It's necessary, for readable prose. Not all published sentences are maximally efficient, obviously. But no one gets published today without understanding how to write good sentences and avoid bad ones. As readers, this skill is the first thing we select for. If a story isn't readable, it won't be read. And beyond a point, I don't believe there's real value in learning this skill – one hits a point of diminishing returns, the closer one gets to optimal efficiency. Here, I think 917013 hits the mark.
But writing happens along two axes, performance and creation. Creation says, "This is the time to show. This is the time to tell." Creation says, "Twilight loves Celestia, but not like that." Creation says, "Kill him now."
The art is in the artifice.
Creation is about ideas. It is multifaceted, and mastery is not required in published literature. Agatha Christie and Tom Clancy write excellent plots... and terrible characters. H.P. Lovecraft can craft a scene like nobody's business, but he's shit when it comes to telling a story.
916825 is dead on in saying writers improve by choice. Practice isn't enough. Directed practice is necessary, and this is where many published authors fail. It's difficult to improve your characters by writing great, plot-driven stories. An author who constantly writes for pace and action will have a hard time building her skill at evocative description. You grow where you spend your effort.
We can't lay professional writers' failure to improve on a lack of good feedback. It must be true in some cases, but not all. Failure to improve comes from failure to strive. That may stem from self-importance. That may stem from the development of a style and comfort in its use. That may stem from a conscious decision that this is good enough. Or that may stem from an inability to recognize new questions to ask – and this is the great virtue, I think, of collaborative pre-reading. One gets a chance to see what sorts of questions other authors, writers with different talents, may ask.
I've had GhostOfHeraclitus and PoweredByTea reading for me lately. Ghost thinks like me. He may see things I miss, but I understand his objections immediately. Powered has a very different perspective from mine. He sees weaknesses I still don't quite understand, but in trying to fix them I start to see their shape. A new perspective helps me improve, but only if I want to improve.
An author should fear the day he runs out of questions as much as the day he stops looking for answers. But yes, we can improve.
917197
I did not expect my story to be favourited. I did not expect it to be a work of art. I am simply wondering if I am the problem. I agree that it is unreasonable to expect a first story to be good. I also did not intend any offense to authors, writing is not an easy thing. I took out the
"first fic" thing as you are correct, it does seem like a huge warning now. I apologize if I offended you, and appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
917242
I think we all want our stuff read. There's nothing wrong with that. But you have to be willing to put yourself out there to earn that readership, even if it means publishing things you don't think are great. There's basically nothing on this site less likely to get views than an OC-only one-shot with a first-fic disclaimer. It is, sadly, the nature of the game. Some very good authors in this thread, authors with a large number of followers, have OC-only stories that haven't fared all that much better.
Please don't be discouraged. The site is better when everyone participates. But don't give up on your writing by refusing to publish things that aren't perfect. We get better through practice. If you see ways to improve, then write again, taking those lessons to heart. If you get comments telling you where your story is weak, try to write another that addresses those comments.
Also... I know it's crass and populist, but do yourself a favor and write TwiLuna. Everyone reads TwiLuna. You're guaranteed to get views and comments telling you how you can improve.
917276
I thank you for your feedback and encouragement.
TwiLuna you say... *evil grin*
917111
Never, ever, EVER trust an artist's opinion about his own work. Ever.
Hmm, referring to pre-readers as the wall between the writer and the abyss, after using swords as a metaphor for stories.
I fear for the safety of pre-readers everywhere.
EVER!
917157
Alcohol isn't a stimulant silly.
The best stimulant is probably nicotine. Or is that for when you're READING clop?
917345
And lo!, shall the writer take up his word-honed sword with fire curled 1
and, thus, with terrible visage shall he ride forth from the Book Fort
on the grim business of war, and lo! shall there be a mighty slaughter!
Words shall fall by their thousands, and paragraphs shall cry out for aid,
but no aid shall there be, not from the heavens, not from the good earth, 5
for the Writers shall have puissance, such that none may stand against them,
be they ever so skilled with blade or bow, or ever so bent on exacting vengeance,
for was it not written, in grimoires of old, "The pen is mightier than the sword?"
And so, at the height of writerly might, at the apex of the ghastly wordwar,
just as the flower of slaughter had reached full bloom, watered amply by blood 10
the Writer came across figure, cloaked and hooded, standing, silent and menacing
in the middle of a dusty road. The Writer had forgotten silence, forgotten stillness
for he had grown all too used to the clamor of battle and the wild dance of the blade,
and the stillness and silence of the figure offended him, and so he took up his sword
and slashed at the figure with exulted yell, seeking to sweep it aside, as so many before. 15
The storied blade was quick, but the figure was quicker still, and with blinding speed
the sword was stopped -- caught in the hand of the figure, its bare flesh unmarred,
through miracle or magic or some forgotten art of the warrior, none can say.
And the Writer was sore surprised, for none before could withstand the terrible blade,
and so he spoke, with voice like the honing of a rusty edge, thick with menace, 20
"What manner of beast beest thou, that thou art not cut with steel, nor burned
with hellfire, but stand unmarred and unbowed, as would an unfeeling stone?"
And the figure replied, with a voice terrible like the rolling of distant thunder,
"No beast I! No man! But a thing that is not unto anything thou hast words for!
For thou art the Writer, and thine are the words, aye, thine but for a little while, 25
for thou art like unto an inconstant lover, and thy words are soon lost to thee.
While I, I am the First Reader, and the words lost by thee and thine, come to me
I am their steward and their protector. And thou, proud Writer, hath taken up the blade,
and hath carved a mighty path for thyself, but attend Writer, hearken to my words,
thy path is an ill one, and leads to ill ends, for it shall take thee nowhere by down, 30
down into the Abyss, and the pain, misery, strife, and utter darkness withal!
Hear me Writer, for I am the sole thing that standeth between thee and it,
and much as I've guarded your words, I must now keep and guard thee."
And with those words, the First Reader removed his hood, looked the Writer in the eye and spoke:
"I mean for starters why on God's Green Earth is it an epic? Poetry? Really? You aren't any good at that. And that reminds me? What meter is that? Iambic I-can't-countemeter? Also what's with the Ye Olde Butcherede Englishe in the dialogue? Thee? Thou? I mean what? And another thing, what's with you and adjectives? Seriously. You are like HP Lovecraft on a dexedrine bender. You sound like the bastard child on the KJV and the Eye of Goddamn Argon! Exulted yell? Exulted yell? Do they have opaque lithe noses, as well? Good grief! And speaking of that, what's with the character of Writer? Is he a warior, what? What's a wordwar, come to think of it? And another thing..."
And there was much rejoicing.
And, yes, I will go to any lengths to get a joke. Even a feeble one. Though I do think the above does help answer the central point of the blog post -- clearly looking at the above, writers don't get better. They get worse. Also, insane. So it goes.
Depends on what wants stimulatin'.
Just after, I should think.
917405
I want to give you all my watchlists.
I want to print this out and stick it on my refrigerator.
I think I want to punch you.
917405 Oh, Ghosty, don't ever change. Well, for the better, go ahead, but you know.
Two things: "What manner of beast beest thou, ..." "And thou, proud Writer, ..."
Those should both be thee. Accusative case, silly.
Also, yes. Is that in iambic I-can't-countemeter? And your rhyme needs work. If by 'needs work' I mean 'needs to exist'.
But do carry on.
917470
...'Ghosty?'
The first one, yup, you are right (Don't get on my case regarding cases -- my native language has seven.
) the second, though, isn't quite right. It's nominative case, being as it is, the subject of the sentence.
The poe--epi--thing is in I-can't-countemeter, true enough, but it ain't iambic. It isn't trochaic either. It...it isn't much of anything, really.
Rhyme? Nonsense! You don't get rhyme in heroic blank verse.
917483 Seven cases...Polish? Or something around there?
And as for the second one...it's technically nominative, but thematically accusative.
I'll call it a draw, Ghosty.
917405
And once again, you write a comment of higher quality than about 75% of the actual stories on this site.
I am not even kidding. I am with Bradel here. I need a download comments button.
Can't tell if
or 
.
Heh. Ghosty.
Oh no he didn't~
(... Oh yes he did~)
Well, excuse me, honey, but I think you'll find that... er... Ok, I can't keep this up. I am neither black, american, female or a racist stereotype. Dang.
Back on point, I guess that very much depends on what you take writing as being: the construction of a world filled with a plot, themes and characters or a method of imparting ideas through words. See, I call the former storytelling and the latter writing, because the former is used throughout art as a means of creative expression. It's non-unique, in other words; every bugger and his son does it. Being good at it may make you a good storyteller, but it doesn't necessarily mean I'd want to read anything you'd write.
Throwing examples out here might be wise; I've become a style demon, which often means that I just simply won't read a story whose writing I don't like -- and the story in which I forced myself to do it, after the original gag reflex, left me wanting to stab things with a rusty fork. Also on the list of stories I have tried to read are Eternal and It Takes A Village, both of which I have been assured are great works by people whose opinions I respect, and yet both of which have first chapters that instill a yawning wish in me to be elsewhere. From what I understand, all of these are fairly (or even greatly) sound in the plot, character and theme department. They are, as I have heard, great examples of stories. I (note, I) would not call them great examples of writing, however.
Compare a film or comic, where good visuals or a neat style can carry terrible world building and piss-poor dialogue. We do not have that luxury: words are more than our life blood; they are our all, our everything. All things we do start and end with words: skimp on them and you are no writer, but a storyteller functioning in an incompatible medium*.
Grammar has a primary importance of making sure we all know what we're all saying, yes, but there's a secondary import of giving us rules to strain against, a backdrop with which to create. You've grumbled at me about style before, and I've grumbled back a series of uncertainties, but if you were looking for where the distinction might lie, this may well be it. For me, grammar is the secondary bedrock of style -- rhythm remaining the first -- and the effects of my sentences are transferred through my understanding and manipulation of it. The subtle differences in meaning conveyed by joining two clauses through colon or semicolon; the same for the tone shift given through parenthesis by comma or dash; the switches in meaning given by a participle; the jarring effect of a phrase where a clause ought; suppression of articles siphoning flow; the breathless utterance of a period delayed too long. Even knowing that most people grant a longer pause to a semicolon -- needlessly; there's no defined limit on how long you dangle over a piece of punctuation -- is enough to lend your writing weight a comma wouldn't.
My writing has improved tremendously over the past year, enough that I feel sufficiently confident to reach out beyond the veneer of modesty and say so. My storytelling still has a lot further to go: my characters are noticeably lacklustre and fall far from my mental ideal of a clockwork set of personalities and traits who create a story after being wound up and then unleashed in a setting. I've been a dictator-author since my very first penning, and though I've got considerably better at painting out my mental world, what I'm painting remains a very pretty turd.
Then again, there's a reason I avatar as Scootaloo. I look up to my idols, learn who and what they are and then, one day, surpass them. The Sonic Scootaboom is my fundamental end goal.
It also makes the shadows a lovely place to be. Oh, and I'd argue that the starting advice of this blog, the "Just keep writing, and you'll get better", is bull. I spent a year writing fanfiction in various other fandoms and was ass-backwards terrible. I took around a year out in which I wrote little and critiqued much and came out of it producing works that, whilst not universally lauded, I can look on and feel proud. Writing helped me stagnate; reviewing, and having to think through and research everything I said, helped me grow.
916824
*Raises hand
I vastly prefer the Foundation prequels to the original trilogy, in that, if pressed to decide which to re-read, I'd rather Forward the Foundation than Foundation. Call me a non-standard fan of Sci-Fi who only enjoys it when closer approximations to actual human beings occupy the artfully constructed worlds the genre creates, and... you'd be right.
I assume I am now considered a rare butterfly who needs a pin driven through his spine so he may then be studied. For Science. Excuse me whilst I flap hurriedly away.
*Speaking of which, I've always been fascinated that radio plays -- given the relative compatibility of the modern computer towards creating them -- remain nowhere near as propagated nor as eminent as the written word for fan works. I've been toying with the idea of switching mediums after I've finished all my ongoing works for some time now, if only to recapture that gorgeous sense of being a trail-blazing newbie who does everything wrong.
Also, re-reading this, why is everyone talking about sex? Do I have a mental filter on or something?
917470 And thou hast taken up the blade. Nominative case, correct as is.
917546 Thematically accusative? I don't know what that is.
I believe that yes writers can get better as they write more, like everything practice makes perfect, of course unlike most you need a standard as well as a reader to give constructive criticizm on your piece to improve
917111 Why d'you think I keep bothering your for a sequel to 'The Detective and the Magician?' I want to see what New Bad Horse (a creature much more pleasant to hang around than New Fluttershy) does with those characters and ideas.
So all this time I thought it was because you liked it, when it was actually because you disliked it?
917110 The writer's guide? MY GOD, YOU HAVE HELD THE SECRET ALL THIS TIME? Where is this guide?
917242 I think you don't have anything to be disappointed about yet. If you keep writing, and if things go as well as they can, then someday you will be as good as famous authors, and still be neglected. That's par for the course, and it's one of the points where writers feel despair. You're prematurely depressed. You'll have lots of time to be depressed later.
917664 Sorry! Big miscommunication. What I should have said is, "Knowing correct grammar is part of storytelling like knowing bricklaying is part of architecture." Using different sentence structures for different purposes is always important! Deciding which (correct) sentence structure to use is an artistic decision. Deciding whether to say "I was happy" or "I were happy" is not. The post is about the difficulty of getting better as a writer, but most writers on this site still haven't learned correct grammar. Nothing in this post applies to that, because learning correct grammar is easy. I meant to say that learning correct grammar isn't in the same category as learning how to tell a story.
I assume I am now considered a rare butterfly who needs a pin driven through his spine so he may then be studied. For Science.
No, no. You need a pin driven through your spine for liking the prequels better, that's all.
917922 Talking about sex? Really, I think your dirty mind is not my problem.
Also, I deleted a line from the original post that was, on reflection, stupid.
918538
Well, now I feel all silly, spending all those words arguing against your imaginary position. I guess my private fears that I am the embodiment of the phrase "All style, no substance" got the better of me, and I instinctively jumped to the defense of style against a perceived onslaught.
And man, I'm getting the same reaction from you about Asimov as I did from my dad after finishing The Left Hand of Darkness and saying, 'It was boring and rather stupid.' Why won't normal sci-fi fans allow me to despise the crowning works of their genre in peace?
[Disclaimer: I haven't read the comments yet. I specifically avoided doing so, although I don't remember why clearly enough to explain it to you. There may well be duplications of other people's thoughts in here.]
It's funny you should mention comments and reader feedback... That makes me think of Piers Anthony and Xanath. Mr. Anthony gets and reads reader feedback -- lots of it, at least by the standards of hardcopy writing -- and in his Xanath series, he incorporates various amounts of it at various levels (from individual puns up to most of the plot of at least one book). I've read an eclectic couple of his Xanath books, plus two of his other books (Wielding a Red Sword [if I remember the title correctly], about the personification of War; and some science/magic thing from yet another series of his) and a collection of shorts (which I don't remember very well), and I didn't really like any of them. The one I liked best was the original Xanath novel. I can't tell for sure, but it seems to me that this could be a case of reader
feedbackinvolvement making an author worse.Also, I'm going to contest your claim that Terry Pratchett hasn't gotten better over the course of his career. He may not have gotten better overall, but his more-recent Discworld books are better than older ones. That just means he's gotten better at writing Discword books, but that's what he's famous for.
The best offer I can make for you to get better is "find someone who's better than you (at something), and ask them for help and/or to tear you a new one". (Of course, I am probably not the best possible source for advice.) This may be tricky for you, because it's entirely possible that you won't be able to tell if someone's better than you. Not in a "you're egotistical" way, but in a "you won't be able to tell what you need help with and so can't apply this advice without help" way. I think you're on your own here.
For me, the people I'm thinking of who would be my first choice for this are you, GhostOfHeraclitus, Cold in Gardez, and now probably Horse Voice. Not that that helps much, if anything that's just ego-stroking.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this next thought, so bear with me:
GhostOfHeraclitus's first story was great. It was awesome, and it was silly, and it was imaginative... eh, I'm not sure how to put it. (There may also be some first-encounter nolstalgia talking.) The point is, it was really good.
His second story (Twilight Sparkle and Tea, recall) was very different. It was slightly less awesome than Whom the Princesses, but it was mostly different-awesome so we can't truely compare them. Nonetheless, it was, I consider, slightly less awesome.
His third story, Canterlot Carol, was... hrng. Once again, there may be some experience-order and nolstalgia bias here; but it was 'merely very good', unlike his other two's 'awesome' and 'huh'. Now I can't quite put my finger on what it is that makes it different, but I worry[1] that it may be that it's awesome exclusively by analysis. I can't tell whether that's a bad thing, but as you can tell I think it's less than ideal. But, based in no small part on your blog post analyzing the story, I think that trait may be your influence. Which if I'm right, means yours may also suffer from over-analysis. Something to think about.
[1] I think that's the right word. Can't say for certain, though.
Regarding seeing the strings: I've got an exercise to suggest, but I don't know enough about you to couch it in form of directives; instead, I'll have to explain how I'd do it. In addition to ponies, I'm a fan of Joss Whedon's Firefly. So what I'd be doing, is I'd put the main 6 (or maybe main6+Spike, I'm not sure about Spike) on the Serenity (the ship from Firefly), just to see how the main 6 and the crew of Serenity would interact.[2] No goals or anything, not even as much as an excuse plot, just seeing how they'd interact. So the idea is to do something similar: throw the main 6 at something, preferably something else you love, just to see how they react. If you see the strings on your puppets, and it bothers you, stop playing with puppets and meet some characters.
Interestingly, this makes me think of Georg's Bolo fic. I'm not sure why, if that's because I like Bolo or because George likes Bolo. I'm pretty sure they're both true, just not sure which made me think of it.
[2] Rarity and Inara, for example; Mal would discover it when he walks in on Twi poking around in the kitchen; Kaylee runs into Pinkie Pie first, then Twi and Mal. Dash would go stir-crazy or hang out with Wash, probably both.
If this still bothers you, have a look at Good Enough. The main character goes through something similar, though you probably don't have it as bad.
918538 eznguide.rodgerdodger.me
Oh -- two things I forgot to mention the first time around:
First, {/offtopic I love your blogs, especially the really thinky ones like this. The discussions are great.}
Second, you mentioned in your blog about Clarion writing school that you didn't get rejection letters on the two pieces you sent to get published since you went. I think it might be useful to compare those. Can we get titles?
918538
Oh come on! That's a totally unfair reading of my comment. I did like it. I liked it so much I want more, and specifically want more as written by the new&improved Bad Horse. It's not that I think that it can finally be done well. It's been done well. I think it can now be done even better.
918826
...suddenly I am very depressed. Writers are bad at judging their own work, sure enough, and here we are. I thought I got better, and I actually got worse. I should probably stop before I improve my stories into ruin.
As a dork, it is my duty to raise the Elder Scrolls problem.
So, it's the year 2005 and you get a few games free with your new graphics card: a shitty racing game (seriously who the hell plays racing games on a goddamn PC?) a shitty Rainbow Six game, and a decidedly odd looking fantasy type game called Morrowind.
Now, you've played a few fantasy games before: Diablo and Diablo II, Dink, Warcraft III, Age of Wonders, Dungeon Siege, Lands of Lore. All very linear hack-slash type games. Lands of Lore III is a bit of an exception, giving you a lot more space to roam and dick around, but still fundamentally a closed world with a single, straightforward plot.
You play Morrowind for the first time and your brain can't handle it. It's weird. There's no dude with a glowing speech bubble over their head directing you to the first and easiest dungeon. There's a main quest that you're free to ignore for as long as you like. You can't find any real boundaries to the game world, there are no valleys that trap you or two-foot walls you can't hop over or water that kills you as soon as you step in it. You can't handle it, so you close the game and forget about it for six months until you're really, really craving some fantasy.
The second time you play Morrowind, you lose yourself to it. There are guilds for just about every conceivable path. Underground caves full of slaves that need freeing. Criminal organisations of
cocainemoon sugar dealers. Black market cat-men who buy your drugs. Hidden cults who worship plague zombies. An extinct race of dwarves whose mechanical creations still roam their abandoned fortresses. Demon cities underneath the sea. A deeply racist native society who only tolerate you because of their imperial oppressors. Entire towns grown from squid-mushrooms. You can finish the main quest and that's barely a fifth of the game completed, and thats without even considering the two expansions and, oh god, the mods. The game sinks its hooks into you, and doesn't let go until you hear there's a sequel coming out.And what a sequel. You've seen the trailers. Combat, speechcraft and lockpicking based on skill rather than dicerolls. Voice acting for all dialogue. The most amazing graphics you have ever seen in a videogame. Magic that can be used alongside your weapon. Stealth that actually works. You've never been more excited for a game in your life.
You get Oblivion and you play it, but it's... ehh.
Sure, some things are awesome. A working stealth system with day/night schedules is awesome, as is being able to escape from prison. The graphics are fantastic. Combat isn't Dark Messiah of Might and Magic worthy but it's still leagues better than Morrowind's clunky mess. But...
What happened to the weirdness? No more packs of cthulu-dogs, sky-jellyfish, 50-foot Stilt Striders or whatever the hell a Hunger is. It's just goblins. And wolves, sans face-tentacles. Imps. Zombies and skeletons. Minotaurs. The blandest, most-generic possible rogues gallery of fantasy creatures. The deeply strange, lovecraftian demon cities have been replaced with portals to a cookie-cutter version of hell. The creepy Dwarven halls have been switched for
RomanElven ruins. You spend waaaaay too long trudging around boring, stressful Hell levels in the main quest, the voice actors are shared between several races and don't even bother to change their tone or cadence. It's like they built an amazing engine and gave it to the wrong damn game. Such a shame.Also, there was a game before Morrowind called Daggerfall. You've seen it and it looks like a clunky, glitchy mess.
There's the rub. Lots of people played Oblivion as their first game in the series. It blew their minds. Total freedom to roam about and stab things, tons of choices, everything is awesome. They've seen Morrowind. It looks like a clunky, glitchy mess.
That's the author problem. You take the things they do well for granted, and whenever they slip up or do things that grate in later works, it sticks out like sand in your mouth. If you read an author's most famous work and then go to the stuff they did later, it almost inevitably seems less powerful in comparison because you've seen the author's tricks and magic and now you're used to them. The writer may have improved and probably did, just not at a rate fast enough to compensate for the loss of surprise.
Also, you mentioned John Kennedy O'Toole of A Confederacy of Dunces fame as one of the authors who had one published work and never improved. There's a reason for that, I feel...
I love these conversations, even though I feel like a third-grade math teacher at a cocktail party with Bohr, Teller and Einstein.