For the most part, I write contemporary novels. Modern issues find their ways into my books.
Rightly so, writers like JK Rowling, Stephen King, and Ray Bradbury have established the crucial importance of constant reading for anyone to be a decent writer. Read read read read read is the overarching theme; read everything you can.
For a long time, I've thought that only meant fiction. Yet, all the nonfiction that I've read (which isn't nearly enough) has helped to create a more believable and honest depiction of contemporary issues and life.
How does a writer balance reading nonfiction and fiction? And by nonfiction I don't mean narrative nonfiction, I mean actual, academic, fact-based nonfiction.
I have nonfiction books on my nightstand, but whenever my fingers itch to pick them up I grab something else. It's a waste, right? To read nonfiction when reading fiction - as all these great writers have said - is the key to being a good fiction writer. There's little emphasis on prose, no such thing as plot or characterization, and no allegory or metaphors or any such fictional devices. How can we fiction writers learn from nonfiction?
But here's the thing. Apart from it being, in my opinion, required for good social activists or public figures, reading nonfiction might be the key to great fiction writing. Seriously. I think it's the next big breakthrough in fiction writing (shhhh, don't give the secret away).
True, most writing and art is simply an autobiography (it's a cynical view of art, but I've found it to be true), but I assume that most of us aren't writing literal autobiographies. We're writing fiction, and we have characters that go through issues we don't go through.
The key is to portray these characters honestly, whether they be in a fantasy novel, a romance, a sci-fi, a mystery, anything. The problems that living beings face are universal and they have universal nuances and complexities that a simple 'I'll guess my way through it' attitude cannot address. These problems are usually also part of a societal structure, a structure that can be analyzed and understood more thoroughly.
It's one of the (few) problems I had with Harry Potter. How does race play a role in the wizarding world? How do Muggleborns not speak up against the tyranny of owl mail when text messages work so much faster (and would have solved Harry's dilemma of finding Sirius Black quite quickly - and electric objects do work in Grimmauld Place, they only don't work in Hogwarts). Where are all these complexities? The series's saving grace is the fact that it is fantasy. Rowling already painstakingly created such a nuanced world that expecting any more from her is just cruel and unusual punishment. Plus, she is Queen. I just wanted to show that these complexities and nuances (learned from nonfiction based on this world) could be translated to fantasy.
And even further complexities and nuances: gentrification, health care, law, policy, scientific methodology, university structures, etc. These exist in the real world and can exist in fantasy worlds as well.
I've completely revised my novel based on information I learned within the last few months. Pulling up an article or Googling a quick fact for research works well but not nearly as well as really researching and reading the best books on your topic. Not to mention, taking the first bit of information you receive can be dangerous.
For example. In The DaVinci Code, Robert Langdon speaks to a group of prisoners about the Mona Lisa's supposed gender duality. Using the Egyptian god Amon and the goddess Isis (or L'isa), Langdon, a Harvard professor, uses the fact that the two names rearrange to Mona Lisa as part of his proof that Mona Lisa smiles because she promotes the divine union of male and female.
Well. Well. Da Vinci never named the painting. Never. It's called La Gioconda traditionally (yes, not Mona Lisa, we English-lovers!) and was named Mona Lisa centuries after Da Vinci's death. Ugh. Just read this, it explains it all. Harvard professor? I think not.
But the fact of the matter is, how would someone have known the painting's naming history without doing thorough research? It's not a fact that most even imagine to research about. The only solution is to just research everything.
Not only did Dan Brown alienate much of his readership (I almost but the book down after reading that part), but he lost credibility with many people. But you can't really blame him. It's the case of a 'take the first bit of information given and not look into it further'. It's something we all do to save time and make quick decisions.
But fiction writing is not fast. We all know that. It's a slow-cooked meal, and the slower you cook it, the better it gets (unless it's super slow - try being good, but not overly perfectionist!). Do your research. Read nonfiction!
Reading all these books will take long. Reading nonfiction that has little to do with your subject matter is crucially important too, because having a broad knowledge base lets you pick where your novel can go, giving you a much bigger canvas to paint on. I mean, we read fiction books outside our genre, right? Why not read nonfiction books outside our topics? It'll give us the honesty that we all reach for when we write.
First on my reading list, after I finish my current book, is Merchants of Doubt or Alan Turing's biography, still have to decide.
Do you read nonfiction? Why or why not?
Showing posts with label Reading. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading. Show all posts
Friday, January 16, 2015
Monday, September 1, 2014
The Hogwarts Express Leaves Today!
It's September 1st, and all you Harry Potter fans (so, basically everyone in the world) know what this means: IT'S TIME TO GO TO HOGWARTS!!!!!!
The train leaves at 11 o'clock precisely. I'll be on it and you guys should be too (unless you're Muggles).
I LOVE HOGWARTS.
Is it weird that I love a 'fictional' place more than I love some real-life places I've visited? How could something created and a place I've never been to feel like home? I've been thinking about it and it's just weird; how can readers connect so much to the written word that it feels more real than some aspects of life itself?
This happens with the best books, and there aren't a shortage of them. In fact, I think that's the reason we read: to escape into a world. The better the world is, the more we can escape into it, and the better the book is.
Why?
Because along with Harry, we experience the process of finding a home? We are new to the world and so is Harry, and thus we're both immersed into the world and find homes at Hogwarts?
Maybe it's because that's where Harry experiences so much. It's where he grows and learns and goes through incredibly tough times and also great times. Basically, it's home. And the fact that the series centers around this castle that is so detailed and thought-out makes it a home for us. More than that, it's because Hogwarts is Harry's escape, it is also our escape from the real world. Through the third person limited POV, JK Rowling did all this. Is it as technical as that?
Probably. But when it boils down to it, home never feels technical. It's a passion and an emotion. It's why we read.
What do you look for in a book? Why do you read? In what book do you find home?
Friday, April 4, 2014
Why Teenagers Don't Read
I've been thinking about this a lot, mostly because I'm worried that reading as a whole is declining - which means, where will we be in a decade? Where will future authors be?
Teenagers are future adults. They're the future readers - if there are readers left.
Now, I know, I know, there are tons of teens who read, but it'd be a joke to say that there are more readers than non-readers. I'm guessing, but maybe a fifth of all teens read more than six books a year (voluntarily)? And that's a generous number.
If you think about it, there's no real reason (except the one that I will mention soon) which can explain this. Let me compare books to the ever-prosperous movie industry.
Do books cost a lot? No. The average paperback is less than ten dollars - about the price of a movie ticket. And teens go to the movies a lot.
Do books provide any less entertainment? No. Almost all readers (even teens) agree that books are better than their movie-versions. Books (good books) provide even more entertainment because they take longer to get through than movies.
Are books 'uncool' because reading is a solitary activity? No. I thought this might be the reason - movies are so prosperous because you can go with friends and that's 'cool' - but teenagers spend hours alone on the Internet or watching movies on the TV. They don't really care about being alone.
Are books just 'uncool'? Yes. But not for the reason you think.
I am a firm believer in the fact that books are uncool because it is mandatory for teens to read certain books for school. Ironically, forcing teens to read books is actually causing the decline of reading.
Think about it.
Say you're in a cinema class and you have to watch a movie a week and do reports on them. Every single movie gets a 3-page report. And this class is mandatory for everybody.
Do you think you will then go outside on Friday nights and watch movies? Heck no! You'll go get a book instead, maybe. Why would you want to watch another movie? Your eyes would be hurting and you'd rather faint than watch another frame of film. School and mandatory assignments would destroy your love for movies.
It's a psychological effect. Movies would forever become associated with the pain of book reports - and, even more so, the idea of 'mandatory,' and idea most teens hate. They'd break free of movies and never return because they never want to feel the same pain or be 'caged'. Maybe, in many years, this association would wear off. But it'll always linger.
I think the easiest solution to solving the teenage reading problem would be to get rid of mandatory reading. Then, a year later (a year later because there needs to be a gap where teenagers can 'rejoice' that they don't have to read books - and they won't read books, at least for a while, because they're too happy) - so, a year later, publish a bunch of really, really good books. The teens would not feel restricted and, given something good to read, they'd read it, because they have the choice. It's also psychologically proven that given some sort of degree of self-control drastically increases the work performance and happiness of a person.
But, of course, there are side effects: the decline of classic literature (most of which is taught in school), the confusion on how to teach English classes if not through literature, etc. So I don't think, truly, my solution would really work practically. I do think, however, that it would get rid of the stigma of reading.
I just really don't like this whole stigma on reading. Because, many times, the people who don't read books are the very people who need books the most to guide them and help them.
Sigh.
What do you guys think about the stigma on reading?
Teenagers are future adults. They're the future readers - if there are readers left.
Now, I know, I know, there are tons of teens who read, but it'd be a joke to say that there are more readers than non-readers. I'm guessing, but maybe a fifth of all teens read more than six books a year (voluntarily)? And that's a generous number.
If you think about it, there's no real reason (except the one that I will mention soon) which can explain this. Let me compare books to the ever-prosperous movie industry.
Do books cost a lot? No. The average paperback is less than ten dollars - about the price of a movie ticket. And teens go to the movies a lot.
Do books provide any less entertainment? No. Almost all readers (even teens) agree that books are better than their movie-versions. Books (good books) provide even more entertainment because they take longer to get through than movies.
Are books 'uncool' because reading is a solitary activity? No. I thought this might be the reason - movies are so prosperous because you can go with friends and that's 'cool' - but teenagers spend hours alone on the Internet or watching movies on the TV. They don't really care about being alone.
Are books just 'uncool'? Yes. But not for the reason you think.
I am a firm believer in the fact that books are uncool because it is mandatory for teens to read certain books for school. Ironically, forcing teens to read books is actually causing the decline of reading.
Think about it.
Say you're in a cinema class and you have to watch a movie a week and do reports on them. Every single movie gets a 3-page report. And this class is mandatory for everybody.
Do you think you will then go outside on Friday nights and watch movies? Heck no! You'll go get a book instead, maybe. Why would you want to watch another movie? Your eyes would be hurting and you'd rather faint than watch another frame of film. School and mandatory assignments would destroy your love for movies.
It's a psychological effect. Movies would forever become associated with the pain of book reports - and, even more so, the idea of 'mandatory,' and idea most teens hate. They'd break free of movies and never return because they never want to feel the same pain or be 'caged'. Maybe, in many years, this association would wear off. But it'll always linger.
I think the easiest solution to solving the teenage reading problem would be to get rid of mandatory reading. Then, a year later (a year later because there needs to be a gap where teenagers can 'rejoice' that they don't have to read books - and they won't read books, at least for a while, because they're too happy) - so, a year later, publish a bunch of really, really good books. The teens would not feel restricted and, given something good to read, they'd read it, because they have the choice. It's also psychologically proven that given some sort of degree of self-control drastically increases the work performance and happiness of a person.
But, of course, there are side effects: the decline of classic literature (most of which is taught in school), the confusion on how to teach English classes if not through literature, etc. So I don't think, truly, my solution would really work practically. I do think, however, that it would get rid of the stigma of reading.
I just really don't like this whole stigma on reading. Because, many times, the people who don't read books are the very people who need books the most to guide them and help them.
Sigh.
What do you guys think about the stigma on reading?
Monday, November 4, 2013
Let's Eradicate 'Guilty' Pleasures
Seriously.
I think we now call some pleasures 'guilty pleasures' because adding the 'guilty' in front of it, in some way, excuses the pleasure or almost asks forgiveness for it -- when none is necessary in the first place.
"I watch dramas, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine."
"I watch Spongebob, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine."
Heck, even, "I read 50 Shades, but it was just a guilty pleasure of mine!"
Something that upsets me is when people ask forgiveness for what gives them pleasure, doesn't harm anyone else (and doesn't really even harm themselves!), and they ask forgiveness from others who honestly don't have much of a say over what you do.
Here's the thing.
What constitutes a 'guilty' pleasure? Is it something that most of society has shunned (usually because of prejudices or preconceived stereotypes), but something you find pleasure in? Let's be honest: most of us who have bashed 50 Shades have never even read the books (I being included in that group). And even if we have read them, and even if we didn't like them, what allows us to make others feel uncomfortable about enjoying the books? Live and let live, no? (Even though it's really hard for books that I feel strongly against.)
It's just that I'm seeing so much of, "I like this author, he/she is my guilty pleasure." Who's making you feel guilty? It's not because you feel guilty about enjoying it; other people are making you feel guilty! And you haven't done anything wrong.
Take pride in your passions. Don't fear loving certain books or authors or anything. Why hide? And all of us (including me, because I really do need this lesson) who have quickly judged based on other people's likes: let's stop. Because not every single book has to be full of beautiful prose or three-dimensional characters.
If you enjoy it, then it is a good book: the author did something right to make you enjoy it. What did the author do? Investigate it, and it won't be a 'guilty' pleasure: you'll learn from the books. It'll be a nutritious novel, so to speak, and you'll feel better about reading it.
So let's break this crutch and answer this one question: What is your greatest "guilty" pleasure?
I'll start.
Don't hurt me or make fun of me, please, knowing that I'm a big Harry Potter fan, and also a male. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but here it is:
I actually enjoyed the Twilight book series.
DON'T GASP.
They're just so readable! Not my favorite books by far, but still. I split my books in two categories: Am I happy I read this, or should I never have wasted my time? Twilight is in the former category. Some may not agree with me, but, yea... oh well. There are very few books in my 'I never should have wasted my time' category. In fact, I think there are no books in there; out of all the books I've read, there are only two that I strongly, strongly, strongly dislike. Urrggh. But I don't know if they were a waste of my time, so to speak.
ANYWAY.
Let's not be ashamed of 'guilty pleasures' anymore!
What is your greatestguilty pleasure?
P.S. For those of us in Daylight Savings Time Zones, hope the time change went well!
I think we now call some pleasures 'guilty pleasures' because adding the 'guilty' in front of it, in some way, excuses the pleasure or almost asks forgiveness for it -- when none is necessary in the first place.
"I watch dramas, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine."
"I watch Spongebob, but it's a guilty pleasure of mine."
Heck, even, "I read 50 Shades, but it was just a guilty pleasure of mine!"
Something that upsets me is when people ask forgiveness for what gives them pleasure, doesn't harm anyone else (and doesn't really even harm themselves!), and they ask forgiveness from others who honestly don't have much of a say over what you do.
Here's the thing.
What constitutes a 'guilty' pleasure? Is it something that most of society has shunned (usually because of prejudices or preconceived stereotypes), but something you find pleasure in? Let's be honest: most of us who have bashed 50 Shades have never even read the books (I being included in that group). And even if we have read them, and even if we didn't like them, what allows us to make others feel uncomfortable about enjoying the books? Live and let live, no? (Even though it's really hard for books that I feel strongly against.)
It's just that I'm seeing so much of, "I like this author, he/she is my guilty pleasure." Who's making you feel guilty? It's not because you feel guilty about enjoying it; other people are making you feel guilty! And you haven't done anything wrong.
Take pride in your passions. Don't fear loving certain books or authors or anything. Why hide? And all of us (including me, because I really do need this lesson) who have quickly judged based on other people's likes: let's stop. Because not every single book has to be full of beautiful prose or three-dimensional characters.
If you enjoy it, then it is a good book: the author did something right to make you enjoy it. What did the author do? Investigate it, and it won't be a 'guilty' pleasure: you'll learn from the books. It'll be a nutritious novel, so to speak, and you'll feel better about reading it.
So let's break this crutch and answer this one question: What is your greatest "guilty" pleasure?
I'll start.
Don't hurt me or make fun of me, please, knowing that I'm a big Harry Potter fan, and also a male. I can't believe I'm about to say this, but here it is:
I actually enjoyed the Twilight book series.
DON'T GASP.
They're just so readable! Not my favorite books by far, but still. I split my books in two categories: Am I happy I read this, or should I never have wasted my time? Twilight is in the former category. Some may not agree with me, but, yea... oh well. There are very few books in my 'I never should have wasted my time' category. In fact, I think there are no books in there; out of all the books I've read, there are only two that I strongly, strongly, strongly dislike. Urrggh. But I don't know if they were a waste of my time, so to speak.
ANYWAY.
Let's not be ashamed of 'guilty pleasures' anymore!
What is your greatest
P.S. For those of us in Daylight Savings Time Zones, hope the time change went well!
Friday, September 6, 2013
What's Better: More Sales or More Reactions?
I've been thinking about this for a while.
I was looking at the stats for my posts on this blog. Two of these posts displayed a trend that was...interesting.
My What Do You Do When Life Gets in the Way? post got ten comments, some of the comments running to more than a page double-spaced. The comments were insightful, thoughtful, and the authors gave up time to put down their thoughts and discuss them. (Comments are my favorite part of blogging, seriously.)
My Interview with MarcyKate Connolly, on the other hand, got only one comment, but it had almost three dozen more views than the post I mentioned above!!! People shared this link, they were interested in it, and they read it.
This might be explained by the timing of the posts, my own venturing and commenting on other blogs, etc. and granted, big-comment posts usually have big view counts. But you'll be amazed to see that many of my lowest-commented posts are viewed more than an average SC Write post.
But which extreme is better? What will you strive for in your writing? More reactions out of people (but smaller sales) or more sales (and less reaction)? Of course, you can do both and be like Harry Potter, but that's really hard. What do you want?
I think, deep down, authors know this answer, but it's difficult to bring out, and right now, I honestly can't come up with which one I'd want more than the other.
I'd LOVE for people to talk about my book with me, discuss it, share it with others, all proof that it made a big impact on them (that'd be amazing). I want my book to make an impact. I'd be devastated if it didn't. And also, low-selling books usually aren't the ones that live on decades after, so my heard tells me that this would be the extreme I'd like.
But I'd also love knowing that many people are reading my book. My story is traveling and people, strangers, are reading it, and they heard and read my story even if they didn't outwardly react to it! Can I just trust my own story and believe that the readers are internally affected? And although I wouldn't complain, I wouldn't like my book to be famous and beloved after I die; the idea tears my mind apart right now.
So do I want a smaller but more devoted audience, or a bigger but less reactionary one?
It's really something to think about, because the answer to this question can help guide you in finding out what you want your book to be. What you want out of your writerly career. Yes. It's a big question. (And hopefully, we all can achieve the best of both these worlds/audiences!)
The big question: What do you think?
I was looking at the stats for my posts on this blog. Two of these posts displayed a trend that was...interesting.
My What Do You Do When Life Gets in the Way? post got ten comments, some of the comments running to more than a page double-spaced. The comments were insightful, thoughtful, and the authors gave up time to put down their thoughts and discuss them. (Comments are my favorite part of blogging, seriously.)
My Interview with MarcyKate Connolly, on the other hand, got only one comment, but it had almost three dozen more views than the post I mentioned above!!! People shared this link, they were interested in it, and they read it.
This might be explained by the timing of the posts, my own venturing and commenting on other blogs, etc. and granted, big-comment posts usually have big view counts. But you'll be amazed to see that many of my lowest-commented posts are viewed more than an average SC Write post.
But which extreme is better? What will you strive for in your writing? More reactions out of people (but smaller sales) or more sales (and less reaction)? Of course, you can do both and be like Harry Potter, but that's really hard. What do you want?
I think, deep down, authors know this answer, but it's difficult to bring out, and right now, I honestly can't come up with which one I'd want more than the other.
I'd LOVE for people to talk about my book with me, discuss it, share it with others, all proof that it made a big impact on them (that'd be amazing). I want my book to make an impact. I'd be devastated if it didn't. And also, low-selling books usually aren't the ones that live on decades after, so my heard tells me that this would be the extreme I'd like.
But I'd also love knowing that many people are reading my book. My story is traveling and people, strangers, are reading it, and they heard and read my story even if they didn't outwardly react to it! Can I just trust my own story and believe that the readers are internally affected? And although I wouldn't complain, I wouldn't like my book to be famous and beloved after I die; the idea tears my mind apart right now.
So do I want a smaller but more devoted audience, or a bigger but less reactionary one?
It's really something to think about, because the answer to this question can help guide you in finding out what you want your book to be. What you want out of your writerly career. Yes. It's a big question. (And hopefully, we all can achieve the best of both these worlds/audiences!)
The big question: What do you think?
Monday, April 8, 2013
Too Much to Read & Internet Addiction (SAVE ME!!!)
WAY too much.
Like, a dozen books currently started, but waiting to be finished.
It's kind of crazy, actually. THERE ARE JUST SO MANY GOOD BOOKS OUT THERE! And too little time to read them all. Grrrr.
Since when have I had to plan time in order to read? I plan time in order to write, not read. Reading is not the job -- writing is. Reading is fun. But now it's become all 'scheduled' and stuff, not spontaneous and fun like it should be.
I only get like 10ish pages done a night before I get tired. That means less than a book a month. That SUCKS.
Granted, I can be reading instead of wasting hours on the Internet and stuff, but wasting time on the Internet is the 'second step' in the long sequence to get me to actually write. I probably write like a half-an-hour in a row, and spend more than an hour before that 'warming up' by wasting time on the Internet.
So all that 'wasting' time... it's required. To get me to write.
Yea. I have no excuse.
Sigh.
Eternal shame.
Do you have a lot to read?
(I'm trying to think of more questions so I can waste more time on the Internet. Sigh. This is getting really bad.)
Oh, oh! What books are on YOUR to-be-read list?
SAVVVEE ME!!!!
Like, a dozen books currently started, but waiting to be finished.
It's kind of crazy, actually. THERE ARE JUST SO MANY GOOD BOOKS OUT THERE! And too little time to read them all. Grrrr.
Since when have I had to plan time in order to read? I plan time in order to write, not read. Reading is not the job -- writing is. Reading is fun. But now it's become all 'scheduled' and stuff, not spontaneous and fun like it should be.
I only get like 10ish pages done a night before I get tired. That means less than a book a month. That SUCKS.
Granted, I can be reading instead of wasting hours on the Internet and stuff, but wasting time on the Internet is the 'second step' in the long sequence to get me to actually write. I probably write like a half-an-hour in a row, and spend more than an hour before that 'warming up' by wasting time on the Internet.
So all that 'wasting' time... it's required. To get me to write.
Yea. I have no excuse.
Sigh.
Eternal shame.
Do you have a lot to read?
(I'm trying to think of more questions so I can waste more time on the Internet. Sigh. This is getting really bad.)
Oh, oh! What books are on YOUR to-be-read list?
SAVVVEE ME!!!!
Monday, March 11, 2013
Writers CAN Read Too Much
(Time change made me lose an hour of sleep. Yawn. I like the time change more in autumn, but I love the extra daylight now. And, this change might help me get back to a normal, non-insomniac sleep pattern. Really. It's a problem.)
This is for all those people who feel that reading has become almost like a chore.
I have a huge to-be-read pile. I do. I TOTALLY do. Here's a list.
1. Anna Karenina
2. This Side of Paradise
3. Tender is the Night
4. The Beautiful and the Damned
5. The Brothers Karamazov
6. Wuthering Heights
7. An anthology of Ernest Hemingway (which I got from Barnes and Noble)
8. The rest of Victor Hugo's work (I've fallen in love with him after reading Les Mis)
9. Inferno (Dan Brown's new book about to come out)
AND THAT IS JUST SOME. I have to read so, SO many more modern books! I'm still in a classic-fix and I can't get out. They're just too darn good. (But I do plan on reading some of the books you suggested . Some of those books will one-up the books I have listed above :D THANK YOU FOR THAT! I neeeed to read more modern books, and you've given me a gold mine.)
As writers, we read (at least, most of us do). We have a love for it, and we want to read a LOT.
But there is only so much time on your hands, and so, so many books. For some of us, getting time in to write is a chore in itself. Many of us don't have the luxury of a lot of free time to write. So if you spend that time reading instead of writing - well, you aren't doing much to be a writer.
Reading should be a pleasure. It should be fun, it should be exciting, it should remind you why you want to be a writer in the first place. And reading is almost necessary to be a good writer. Reading a lot is one of the biggest things you can do to advance your writing. Every book is a lesson on writing.
But if you have just one hour of free time a day, write. Don't read.
If you have to chose between finishing writing a scene or finishing reading a scene, write.
Because we are writers, and writing is our job. No matter how fun something is, you wouldn't be able to stop an important meeting and do that thing, right? The same way, writing is your job. Work at it, and spend your free time (we all know we have some sometime during the week) doing what you love. Reading can be that thing.
But if you are experiencing frustration (which is different from Writer's Lag), take a break from writing and maybe read. Do something else.
And if reading feels like a chore (next book, then the next book, then the next book) and you are rushing, but not enjoying it, take a break! Stop and smell the roses! Know why you are reading in the first place - to enjoy. Life is not all about rushing. Don't read like a robot - feel free to explore and read things just for fun (not just "high-brow" classics). I really should listen to my own advice, by the way....
Don't read so much so that you become a reader and not a writer. But, don't read so little so that you don't know how to write.
Reading is SUPER SUPER SUPER important. BUT, reading is not your job, nor your chore. Writing is. Finding the balance between the two is hard, but important.
And laugh at yourself! We are not fighting in a war, putting our life on the line, or have lives on our hands. We are writing, and it is a blessing that we can do that. Don't feel so stressed out by it all - have fun, and...well, this has become a post about having fun, so I'll end it right here and save it for another post :D
HAPPY MONDAY GUYS!
What do you think? Does reading ever feel like a chore to you?
Don't forget to subscribe! There is a CONTEST coming up soon.... For those queriers/future queriers, won't want to miss it :)
This is for all those people who feel that reading has become almost like a chore.
I have a huge to-be-read pile. I do. I TOTALLY do. Here's a list.
1. Anna Karenina
2. This Side of Paradise
3. Tender is the Night
4. The Beautiful and the Damned
5. The Brothers Karamazov
6. Wuthering Heights
7. An anthology of Ernest Hemingway (which I got from Barnes and Noble)
8. The rest of Victor Hugo's work (I've fallen in love with him after reading Les Mis)
9. Inferno (Dan Brown's new book about to come out)
AND THAT IS JUST SOME. I have to read so, SO many more modern books! I'm still in a classic-fix and I can't get out. They're just too darn good. (But I do plan on reading some of the books you suggested . Some of those books will one-up the books I have listed above :D THANK YOU FOR THAT! I neeeed to read more modern books, and you've given me a gold mine.)
As writers, we read (at least, most of us do). We have a love for it, and we want to read a LOT.
But there is only so much time on your hands, and so, so many books. For some of us, getting time in to write is a chore in itself. Many of us don't have the luxury of a lot of free time to write. So if you spend that time reading instead of writing - well, you aren't doing much to be a writer.
Reading should be a pleasure. It should be fun, it should be exciting, it should remind you why you want to be a writer in the first place. And reading is almost necessary to be a good writer. Reading a lot is one of the biggest things you can do to advance your writing. Every book is a lesson on writing.
But if you have just one hour of free time a day, write. Don't read.
If you have to chose between finishing writing a scene or finishing reading a scene, write.
Because we are writers, and writing is our job. No matter how fun something is, you wouldn't be able to stop an important meeting and do that thing, right? The same way, writing is your job. Work at it, and spend your free time (we all know we have some sometime during the week) doing what you love. Reading can be that thing.
But if you are experiencing frustration (which is different from Writer's Lag), take a break from writing and maybe read. Do something else.
And if reading feels like a chore (next book, then the next book, then the next book) and you are rushing, but not enjoying it, take a break! Stop and smell the roses! Know why you are reading in the first place - to enjoy. Life is not all about rushing. Don't read like a robot - feel free to explore and read things just for fun (not just "high-brow" classics). I really should listen to my own advice, by the way....
Don't read so much so that you become a reader and not a writer. But, don't read so little so that you don't know how to write.
Reading is SUPER SUPER SUPER important. BUT, reading is not your job, nor your chore. Writing is. Finding the balance between the two is hard, but important.
And laugh at yourself! We are not fighting in a war, putting our life on the line, or have lives on our hands. We are writing, and it is a blessing that we can do that. Don't feel so stressed out by it all - have fun, and...well, this has become a post about having fun, so I'll end it right here and save it for another post :D
HAPPY MONDAY GUYS!
What do you think? Does reading ever feel like a chore to you?
Don't forget to subscribe! There is a CONTEST coming up soon.... For those queriers/future queriers, won't want to miss it :)
Friday, March 8, 2013
Should You Reread Books?
There are so, SO many great books out there, and only one hundred years you will live. At most, what, about 1,000-2,000 books you can finish in your lifetime (and that is incredibly generous)? Why waste time rereading a book if you can read a brand new - maybe even better - book?
I spent more than a year, maybe two, reading/rereading the Harry Potter series. (Seriously.) I barely read anything else other than Harry Potter; once I finished one book in the series, I'd go on to another (although, I've never read them all one-by-one in order. I should do that sometime....) I think I read Deathly Hallows fourteen times (give or take a few).
I feel like, maybe, I regret that - I could have read so much more, but whenever I had tried, I usually put the book down cursing that it was nowhere near as good as Harry Potter.
I understand rereading books - I've done it a LOT. I understand how it can be bad. But I understand how it can be amazing too.
I recently started rereading The Great Gatsby and I found out JUST HOW MUCH I MISSED THE FIRST TIME AROUND. I skimmed through the first half or so the first time I read it, and this time, I took my time, and found so much more. (Maybe my problem is speed-reading, which leads me to rereading.) I picked up on so much foreshadowing and hints that one could only realize the second time around.
Some books become totally different the second time they are read. Harry Potter, I feel, is one of them; it is a true regret if you do not reread those books. The plot is magical and should be read/studied by every writer.
Usually, books with mysteries and plot twists fall under the 'rereadability' category, yet, I might reread Catcher in the Rye just because I love the writing so much. And that book almost lacks a plot.
Rereading is great if you have forgotten a book's substance but still remember loving it. REREAD IF YOU ARE IN THIS SITUATION! It'll be (I think) an amazing experience :D
So is there a 'criteria' to reread?
In the end, it comes down (as it always does) to balance.
I wouldn't recommend doing what I did and only reading Harry Potter for a couple of years. That was bad - but I wouldn't say unnecessary, exactly. Maybe it was just something I needed to do. I haven't reread any Harry Potter book since Deathly Hallows, back in 2011 when the 8th movie came out. (I finished the reread in the IMAX theatre with (literally) 50 other friends, during the birthday/movie party which I held. BEST BIRTHDAY EVER (so far)!)
Basically, if you feel like rereading a book, go for it. If you don't feel like it, don't. Keep it simple and life will be easier for everyone.
I don't like the idea of rushing to read every book out there before you die - why not enjoy what you are reading? If at the end of your life you regret not rereading your favorite novel, then maybe your super-fast reading-spree was harmful.
Be okay with the fact that there will be great books you will never read - either those already out, or those out after you are gone. Enjoy reading. Doesn't matter if that means reading something new, or rereading your old favorites. Live happy :)
How about you guys? Do you like to reread, or would you rather read new books every time?
I spent more than a year, maybe two, reading/rereading the Harry Potter series. (Seriously.) I barely read anything else other than Harry Potter; once I finished one book in the series, I'd go on to another (although, I've never read them all one-by-one in order. I should do that sometime....) I think I read Deathly Hallows fourteen times (give or take a few).
I feel like, maybe, I regret that - I could have read so much more, but whenever I had tried, I usually put the book down cursing that it was nowhere near as good as Harry Potter.
I understand rereading books - I've done it a LOT. I understand how it can be bad. But I understand how it can be amazing too.
I recently started rereading The Great Gatsby and I found out JUST HOW MUCH I MISSED THE FIRST TIME AROUND. I skimmed through the first half or so the first time I read it, and this time, I took my time, and found so much more. (Maybe my problem is speed-reading, which leads me to rereading.) I picked up on so much foreshadowing and hints that one could only realize the second time around.
Some books become totally different the second time they are read. Harry Potter, I feel, is one of them; it is a true regret if you do not reread those books. The plot is magical and should be read/studied by every writer.
Usually, books with mysteries and plot twists fall under the 'rereadability' category, yet, I might reread Catcher in the Rye just because I love the writing so much. And that book almost lacks a plot.
Rereading is great if you have forgotten a book's substance but still remember loving it. REREAD IF YOU ARE IN THIS SITUATION! It'll be (I think) an amazing experience :D
So is there a 'criteria' to reread?
In the end, it comes down (as it always does) to balance.
I wouldn't recommend doing what I did and only reading Harry Potter for a couple of years. That was bad - but I wouldn't say unnecessary, exactly. Maybe it was just something I needed to do. I haven't reread any Harry Potter book since Deathly Hallows, back in 2011 when the 8th movie came out. (I finished the reread in the IMAX theatre with (literally) 50 other friends, during the birthday/movie party which I held. BEST BIRTHDAY EVER (so far)!)
Basically, if you feel like rereading a book, go for it. If you don't feel like it, don't. Keep it simple and life will be easier for everyone.
I don't like the idea of rushing to read every book out there before you die - why not enjoy what you are reading? If at the end of your life you regret not rereading your favorite novel, then maybe your super-fast reading-spree was harmful.
Be okay with the fact that there will be great books you will never read - either those already out, or those out after you are gone. Enjoy reading. Doesn't matter if that means reading something new, or rereading your old favorites. Live happy :)
How about you guys? Do you like to reread, or would you rather read new books every time?
Monday, January 28, 2013
In a Genre Rut - Recommend Books to Me!!
You see, lately, I haven't read a single modern book. I've only picked up classics from Barnes and Noble. Why? Because they are proven to be good - they are classics after all.
I don't feeling that a book has wasted my time, because I could have been reading something that might have been much, much better. There are thousands, millions of books out there, and hundreds of classics; there is only one me, and one life I have to live. I don't want to waste my time reading useless books. So I go to those proven to be amazing: classics.
I've only read classics for almost two years or so, with only a few exceptions (one being A Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling). I can't get myself to buy a modern book unless I've heard from so many people that it is good.
There are so many classics out there. Proven life-changers. I want every book I read to change my life or my writing style. I want to improve my writing and my life with each book I read, and classics are proven to do that.
But the trouble is, classics are old-fashioned. They are written in a style that is no longer in use, and if you do use the same style as Dickens, well, you'll have a tough time getting traditionally published. It's just out of vogue.
If you want to be published, reading classics is not bad (it is actually fantastic); being addicted to them is. And I am definitely addicted.
Plus, I could be missing out on so many amazing books (that thought scares me).
I recently went to Barnes and Noble with the intention to buy something new.. I ended up with Anna Karenina (by Tolstoy), This Side of Paradise (by Fitzgerald), and a four-book-set of Ernest Hemingway.
Sigh.
Help me! Recommend some books to me! I need to freshen up my writerly palette; I need to know how books are being written today, and somehow, I've come to think that modern books = useless, and classics = the only books worth reading. THAT IS NOT TRUE! I know it in my brain, but not in my heart.
So, please, if anyone knows any books with great characters and EMOTION (this is big; I love heart-wrenching books, even though I've never legitimately cried in a book.... Whoops) please, suggest them to me.
I love a good tragedy, as long as it is not a "Good gosh, I hate this ending" type of tragedy. Think A Tale of Two Cities, The Casual Vacancy, and Les Misérables. YES, LES MISÉRABLES! Basically: bittersweet endings. Those are awesome. Either adult or YA, doesn't matter, and fantasy or contemporary or realistic... doesn't matter :D
In the end, I just want a book that is powerful, so even if it is chick lit, please, tell me. Basically, what is your favorite book?
Thank you so much guys!
One thing you can take away from my lesson: being in a reading rut is not good.
You write how you read; if you read the same things over and over again, your writing will be formulaic and boring. Why not incorporate some literary elements in your thriller? Branch out! Explore! Read different things so you can bring something new to your own genre.
Has anyone else experienced being in a genre-rut, or am I the only one?
Now I'm off to read Anna Karenina. Sigh. Thanks for your help!
I don't feeling that a book has wasted my time, because I could have been reading something that might have been much, much better. There are thousands, millions of books out there, and hundreds of classics; there is only one me, and one life I have to live. I don't want to waste my time reading useless books. So I go to those proven to be amazing: classics.
I've only read classics for almost two years or so, with only a few exceptions (one being A Casual Vacancy by JK Rowling). I can't get myself to buy a modern book unless I've heard from so many people that it is good.
There are so many classics out there. Proven life-changers. I want every book I read to change my life or my writing style. I want to improve my writing and my life with each book I read, and classics are proven to do that.
But the trouble is, classics are old-fashioned. They are written in a style that is no longer in use, and if you do use the same style as Dickens, well, you'll have a tough time getting traditionally published. It's just out of vogue.
If you want to be published, reading classics is not bad (it is actually fantastic); being addicted to them is. And I am definitely addicted.
Plus, I could be missing out on so many amazing books (that thought scares me).
I recently went to Barnes and Noble with the intention to buy something new.. I ended up with Anna Karenina (by Tolstoy), This Side of Paradise (by Fitzgerald), and a four-book-set of Ernest Hemingway.
Sigh.
Help me! Recommend some books to me! I need to freshen up my writerly palette; I need to know how books are being written today, and somehow, I've come to think that modern books = useless, and classics = the only books worth reading. THAT IS NOT TRUE! I know it in my brain, but not in my heart.
So, please, if anyone knows any books with great characters and EMOTION (this is big; I love heart-wrenching books, even though I've never legitimately cried in a book.... Whoops) please, suggest them to me.
I love a good tragedy, as long as it is not a "Good gosh, I hate this ending" type of tragedy. Think A Tale of Two Cities, The Casual Vacancy, and Les Misérables. YES, LES MISÉRABLES! Basically: bittersweet endings. Those are awesome. Either adult or YA, doesn't matter, and fantasy or contemporary or realistic... doesn't matter :D
In the end, I just want a book that is powerful, so even if it is chick lit, please, tell me. Basically, what is your favorite book?
Thank you so much guys!
One thing you can take away from my lesson: being in a reading rut is not good.
You write how you read; if you read the same things over and over again, your writing will be formulaic and boring. Why not incorporate some literary elements in your thriller? Branch out! Explore! Read different things so you can bring something new to your own genre.
Has anyone else experienced being in a genre-rut, or am I the only one?
Now I'm off to read Anna Karenina. Sigh. Thanks for your help!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)