Current Project: Untitled Adventure Proposal
Status: Chapter One (again)
This morning when I dropped my youngest off at the gym's daycare to go for a run, one of the daycare providers, Elisabeth (whose name is spelled the same as my name, but you have to say it with a deep French accent because she's French), was talking to me about my book and its release and writing in general. Her 18 yr old daughter is a senior in high school who loves writing and, apparently, is very good at it. Over the course of our discussion, I realized that this kid is one of those natural writers - she doesn't have much use for school other than writing, and she really has no use for the writing assignments they give her, but she takes them and twists them around in creative ways that interest her. She's taking college level writing courses right now, and one of her teachers is married to an English prof at OSU who read some of her work and told his wife if she were in his senior level writing class, he'd give her an A.
And she's 18.
It floors me. It really does, people with this natural writing talent that seems to come from nowhere. Recently, my agent signed a 19 yr old girl to her list because her book was that good. 19! I can't imagine diving into writing at 19, landing an agent and having my work shopped to editors.
While writing has always come easy to me, I wouldn't say I'm a natural at it by any means. Sure, I did well in all my writing courses in high school and college, and in grad school I edited and rewrote all our friends' papers, but that wasn't real writing. In fact, when I was teaching junior high one year we were short on teachers and they asked me to teach language arts one term. You should have heard me protest that one. Sure, I can teach science. I could even manage a reading class if they really needed me. But writing? Uh uh. No way. I got out of that as fast as I could. Which seems strange, doesn't it? Considering I'm a writer now? But the honest truth is I can read a passage and tell you what works and doesn't. I know when something's written well and when parts of speech are wrong. But I can't label what's wrong and I can't teach others how to do it right.
So for me, no. Writing is not something I consider myself a natural at. In fact, my writing journey has been what RWA labels "average". A few years ago RWA ran an article about the length of time it takes to get published. The average writer writes 5 books and it takes them 5 yrs and 4 months to sell. Wanna know how long it took me? Well, STOLEN FURY was the 5th manuscript I wrote before selling, and it sold EXACTLY 5 yrs and 4 months after I started writing.
Average. Not a natural at this whole writing thing at all.
Does that mean you can't be a good writer if you aren't a natural? Not at all. In fact, I think for those of us that have to learn the nuances of writing and really strive to get better, maybe it means more. Some of the most natural writers won't ever see publication because they don't have to work as hard for it or because they don't have the drive. And sometimes, I think that might even mean more than all the natural talent in the world rolled into one.
How about you? Do you consider yourself a natural writer or one who has to work at it every day? And if you ARE a natural writer...please explain this one to me because it's one of those things I never get right...lay or lie. Which one when?
And in case you missed it...check out my blog today. Free copies of STOLEN FURY are being given out all over!
11 comments:
Not a natural and not an average writer/author.
I belonged to RWA 8 years and had written seven books.
And I agree with you - lie/lay???
I think I'm a hybrid, a natural writer with a huge procrastination problem, belief issues, and a whole host of neuroses :) I started dictating stories to my mother before I could write and then I won fiction awards in school, and I did really well in college writing classes. However, I've come to understand that that "natural talent" means bubkus if you can't back it up with hard work and if you don't continue to grow as a writer.
I recently tried to get into the Twilight Books--I think she'd fall into the natural writer category as she sold her first manuscript. However, her writing seems to have stagnated at that early, precocious level, and I don't see the same evolution in craft that I do with other writers. Julia Quinn is another writer who sold her first manuscript, at a ridiculously young age, but you can see a real evolution of craft in her works. Meg Cabot is another one, and she backs it up with high productivity and diverse voices among her series. I think some of the most prolific writers like her ARE natural writers. However, they are natural writers who have channeled their talent well.
Right now I think of the "natural writer" thing as a huge curse that I have to overcome to move forward--I have to get beyond the heavy weight of expectation that this would come easier for me, and I have to slay my personal demons. I'd be happy to claw my way up to average. :) And honey, if you and Paty are "Average," I've got a really, really long climb.
I don't think Natural Writers have the market cornered on grammar by any means. In fact, I think a natural writer is someone who's base voice transcends their grammar foibles.
That said--lay vs. lie:
http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/lay-versus-lie.aspx
If you are more of a visual learner, there is a nice chart here--just scroll down.
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/handouts/esl/eslirrverb.html
Lots of nuances to being a "natural" writer it seems.
Grammar, spelling, sentence structure--all those mechanical skills come easily to me. So do ideas.
However, developing those ideas and tapping into the creative end of writing takes focus and perseverance for me.
I like Wavy's thoughts on "natural" talent. If you don't do anything to channel and develop it, others who are developing that skill will surpass someone with "natural" talent.
And, nope, I don't fit RWA's label of an "average" writer. I sold my first manuscript fourteen years after I started it (and rewrote it at least half a dozen times). And I wrote pieces of several other manuscripts during that time.
I also had/have other issues that have made writing and other things in my life an interesting and sometimes winding journey. :)
I don't know if I'm a natural writer or not. I just write what comes out of my fuzzy brain and go with it. LOL
What does good grammar have to do with good writing anyway? I don't care about it so much as I care about the story being interesting and keeping my attention. I don't care if they lie or lay or get laid, as long as the story's good. :)
And Wavy-- I LOVE the Twilight series and I LOVE "The Host" by Stephenie Meyer, too. The Host took a bit of getting into, but I loved it, and when I was finished with the last page I immediately started reading it over again. I love Julia Quinn too, but now I'm tired of that genre so her latest books are still on my TBR shelf and I don't have any plans to pick them up soon.
Anyway, I'm not understanding your comment about Stephenie's writing "stagnating at that early, precocious level". What does that mean; and please try to explain in terms I can understand because I'm obviously a little dim or I'd probably get what you're saying about her writing; but I don't. DUH! LOL When Steph wrote Twilight she basically wrote the whole story and then it was broken up into different books, I think, by the publisher. And then her only other story is The Host, which was really great on a different level than the Twilight series; so, I'm not getting what you're saying since she's only just begun and really hasn't anything but those two stories to be judged from and that's such a small amount to say that she's stagnant already. I don't know. I just really think I don't know what you're saying about her writing. :) And I'm not trying to argue with your opinion, I just want to understand what you mean by her writing stagnating already and that she's not evolving in her craft. Oh, and one more thing; did you read "The Host" too, or just the Twilight books?
Anyway, I know my comment is waaay off topic now, but I'm dying to know the answers! LOLOLOL
Piper--Don't flame me for hating on Twilight! She wrote Twilight, then while she was waiting to hear back from publishers/agents on it, she wrote a huge, very long sequel that wasn't YA suitable at all. When Twilight sold as a YA, she had to rethink the sequels, and she drafted the three sequels. She explains all about it here: http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilight_faq.html#forever
I actually really liked Twilight, the first book. I started having more issues with Eclipse, and then had the most issues w/ book four, which I couldn't even finish (which is saying something for me). My biggest beef is with the plotting, and I don't want to reveal spoilers, but I'll just say that I HATE red herrings, easy-out solutions, plot holes, and actions inconsistent with character. I think that the later books of Twilight fell victim to what I call the "Rowling syndrome"--as the series got huger and became a whole phenomena, the books became less and less edited.
What I meant by "early, precocious level" was that what's endearing to me in book 1--the meandering narrative, repetitive descriptions and word choice of Twilight became tired and dragging by book 4.
I really like to see evolution in a writer--that POV gets ever deeper, little errors get corrected from book to book, description gets more vivid, characterization gets increasingly unique and better. And actually, I think that push is NOT something that comes with "natural" writing. That push is part of the "average" five books to publish path, and perhaps comes easier to writers who have to keep pushing themselves to get better to reach their goals.
I like Meyer's voice, so I might give the Host a chance. She's only 5 years into her writing journey, so it will be interesting to see where she is 10 years or so from now.
LOL, Don't worry Wavy, whatever you want to say about Twilight/Stephenie Meyer is totally fine with me and I wasn't "flaming" you. I'm assuming "flaming" is bad. I just wanted to understand what you meant in your opinion. :) Thanks for explaining.
I guess I don't really look at stories or books as deeply as you do, so that's why I love the Twilight books; however, I can see what you mean about not pushing to get better and because she was such a success so fast; you're right, they probably really let her pump them out there instead of pushing her to step it up. But I sorta feel that's not really her fault. Know what I mean? I bet she was steamrolled and doesn't even realize that happened to her. Maybe she was just trying to keep up with the demands on her at that time.
Like you said, it will be interesting to see what happens with her writing when they leave her alone and not push her to make THEM money. :)
I'm sorry if my comments made you think I was doing a "flaming" thing. Cause I wasn't. :) I was just letting you know what I thought and then wondering what you meant. :) Thanks again for the details.
I don't know what I am, I think I'm just a writer.
When I taught a writing course awhile back, I had students with excellent educations who had not picked up how to write dialogue, for instance, not the mechanics, not the nuances and the purpose of it, not the cadence of ordinary speech. I kept wondering how these well read people could have missed everything that makes dialogue, dialogue. They didn't even notice the proper punctuation? Huh?
So, I don't know.
Natural talent+hard work+perseverance=success, I suppose and I don't imagine any of the three can stand alone without a really big dollop of luck.
As for averages --there's a line in a book I enjoy where a character points out to another character that on AVERAGE, San Francisco Bay is eighteen inches deep (I probably have this number wrong, but you get the point.) Averages, to quote Wavy, don't mean bubkas.
Btw, I enjoyed the back and forth of Wavy's and Piper's conversation on the Twilight books. I can see where you are both coming from and always enjoy a spirited debate!
Wavy -- what do you mean you HATE red herrings? In mysteries?
Alice--perhaps a better wording would have been that I hate loaded guns that never go off. If you have a loaded gun in chapter 1, and you make a huge deal of it again in Chapter 5, and then everyone spends the next 6 chapters in terror of said gun going off--IT NEEDS TO GO OFF or be stunningly, amazingly, defeated by the hero/ine. Not, "oops, really that was a water pistol!" You can't just have your bad guy change his mind or loose the gun.
Okay, so you hate bad red herrings. Empty red herrings. Red herrings that are devises. Gottcha.
I don't know what I am, I think I'm just a writer.
Alice, I think I love you. LOL :-)
Based on all the discussion, I don't think I'm a natural writer. On the one hand, I've always made up stories since I was a kid and never really had trouble writing, whether creative or non-fiction, in school. On the other hand, it never occurred to me that I could BE a writer until, well, relatively recently. I was always so strong in math and the hard sciences that I just assumed that that's the direction I should be going with my life.
I think, for me, I'm glad that I waited. I feel like I have so much more inside me wanting to come out now than I did when I was younger -- so many more life experiences with which to color my stories, if you will. And while I've got a lot to learn, I've always responded best to being challenged. :-)
Post a Comment