More reasons why budding writers should be prolific readers

Apr 27 2008

I have always maintained on this blog that if you want to be a writer, then you must read a lot. But not everyone agrees with that simple rule. So I wasn’t all that surprised when I came upon this article from the Guardian Unlimited where the writer describes an argument with his brother, and his brother maintains it is not good for a writer to do a lot of reading. Here’s what he says:

Reading too much, my brother explained in his English-teacherly way, is a disaster for a writer. To immerse yourself in literature – particularly those of your contemporaries – makes your work derivative at worst, and unoriginal at best.

This appears to be more of a critique of contemporary fiction than an argument for writers to shun reading. My response to such an argument would be that a budding writer should read everything from contemporary fiction to the classics and everything inbetween. Being a prolific reader of all types of works can only help and improve you as a writer.

However, the writer of this article makes a good case for concentrating on reading one’s contemporaries, but for a very different reason:

If you’re a writer of contemporary literary fiction, published or otherwise, you have to support the industry. I don’t mean waving scarves outside Faber or starting chants at Jonathan Cape, but by supporting your fellow writers.

He continues on by saying:

Reading your contemporaries should both be a delight and a duty

With the seemingly depressing state of fiction sales, it only makes sense that if you want to publish your own novel, you should at least help support those who are also trying to make it as an author.

On a more practical level though, reading a lot will help you in numerous ways as a writer. You will absorb styles and techniques that you both love and hate, thus forming your own unique voice. But I also don’t think that you should limit yourself to just one genre either; read across the spectrum, including non-fiction. That way, if you hate contemporary fiction, for example, you won’t be relying 100% on it as a learning tool.

What do you think? Should writers also be readers? Should a would-be novelist feel an obligation to buy the books written by his/her contemporaries to help support the industry? Why or why not?

I have tackled this issue of why writers should read in this previous post:
More Reading = More (and better) Writing

P.S. Wanna win a $30 Amazon gift card? All you have to do is leave a comment on this post, or any other post written during April 2008! But you’d better hurry, as this month is almost over. Please be sure to read my simple contest rules first and have fun!

2 Responses

Pretty interesting post. In my opinion, I definitely believe that writers should be readers because well, reading is what makes one grow and gain new ideas. One shouldn’t be bored with reading, but at least read something different and new now and then. However, I don’t think that buying a book just to support the industry is necessary. It has to be a book that the person WANTS to buy and read rather than just “Oh, I guess I have to buy it.”

Jess 4/27/2008 2:50 pm
Anyone who says that writers should not read other writers is obviously NOT a writer.
Having read everything I could get my hands on since I was five years-old, I have a huge fund of knowledge and examples that I don’t even realize. I just automatically look at a sentence and say to myself, “That would be better this way.” I don’t know where it comes from or what author, but I KN0W that it should be changed simply because you get into a kind of “flow” by reading good writing that you can’t shuck like dead skin. It becomes a real part of you.
Obviously the brother referenced above is not a writer.
Thank you,
Jim

Jim Kirk 5/27/2008 5:01 pm