Fiction writers who don't read fiction

June 8, 2007 2:48 PM

Do you know of any fiction writers who don't read fiction, or does such a beast even exist?

Would you say it's next to impossible to be, or become, a high-caliber fiction writer without being well-read in fiction? I'm a voracious reader, and will read practically anything that's placed in front of me, as long as it's not fiction. For some reason, fictitious writing simply doesn't engage me.

I hear about interesting novels (Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" springs to mind), but when I attempt to read them, I typically lose interest within the first ten pages. I've picked up "The Catcher in the Rye" half a dozen times, and never made it past page six. My wife hates this, because she loves to read, and wants to discuss books with me, but I just can't get myself to like fiction.

My reading tastes tend to fall in the aisle with all the reference and historical books. I love reading collections of trivial knowledge, and depictions of historical events. I subscribe to half a dozen magazines that I read from beginning to end. I find myself getting trapped in a Wikipedian headlock, where I originally mean to look up one article, and end up following link after link until I've wasted two to three hours reading about everything from the evolutionary advantages of the coconut tree, to Learned Hand. I have MeFi, of course, to thank for sparking many of these Wiki trips.

Now let me cut to the chase. I enjoy writing. I enjoy writing quite a bit. I have a major (BA, not a BFA) in creative writing, and I feel like I have a flair for crafting engaging prose and vivid descriptions. This may not be true, however, as I have very little knowledge of fiction writing on which to compare my own. Two things keep me from writing fiction: 1) I have a fear that what I'm writing, or whatever style I'm attempting, has been written before, and with much greater skill, and 2) I feel like a fraud. Why should I hope that others would read my writing, when I have no intention to read what others have written?

So, is it silly for me to believe that I can become a skilled fiction writer without reading fiction? Do you know of any authors who are in the same boat?

posted by (bb|[^b]{2}) to writing & language (29 comments total)

I think it's kind of silly, in that if you don't appareciate fiction why would you want to write it? There's lots of room for creativity in nonfiction, too (just you can't make up the storyline).
posted by Airhen at 2:58 PM on June 8, 2007

Stop reading others and find your own voice,. This has been said by creative writing professors, at least one anyway.
posted by caddis at 3:00 PM on June 8, 2007

I remember reading somewhere (I think in a Lillian Hellman forward to a collection) that she never saw Dashiell Hammett read fiction, but that was when he was older, after he more or less stopped writing fiction. I would assume he read some fiction at some point in his life. The biggest piece of advice I see writers given is to read.

Plus, if your skill is "crafting engaging prose and vivid descriptions," you can surely write non-fiction creatively?
posted by SoftRain at 3:05 PM on June 8, 2007

I have a fear that what I'm writing, or whatever style I'm attempting, has been written before, and with much greater skill.

There's a really good chance that it has. Or, at least, there's a really good chance that you'll write a book and a publisher will reject it on those grounds. But that's part of the game. What do you do then? Write another book, bearing in mind what you've learned from not getting the first one published. When that one gets rejected, you write another book after that, continuing to expand your material beyond what hasn't worked for you.

Eventually, you get a book published, or you don't.
posted by The Straightener at 3:07 PM on June 8, 2007

I think it would be a bit more difficult, but not impossible. A lot of people suggest reading fiction to get an idea of how the mechanics work -- but you've already done that with your degree, so I don't think it's absolutely necessary. But it's not common. I can't think of anybody off the top of my head who meets your criteria, but that doesn't mean you can't break the mold. Also, have you considered reading fiction to learn what not to do? What about fiction in general doesn't interest you, and how are your novels going to avoid that?

About your first fear: Odds are there's somebody who's already done what you want to do in terms of style, basic plot, etc. But I don't think that means you should just give up. The worst that happens is that publishers reject it because it reads too much like X. But not every idea a writer comes up with is gold, and so I don't see why this should stop you.

About your second fear: There are people who read fiction just as voraciously as you read non-fiction. Those people won't care. Besides, just because somebody reads a book doesn't mean the author is obliged to return the favor.
posted by lilac girl at 3:07 PM on June 8, 2007

a flair for crafting engaging prose and vivid descriptions.

Sounds like John McPhee, who doesn't write fiction. If you don't like to read fiction, why write it?

I mostly don't read fiction these days - not contemporary non-genre fiction, anyway. I read ten or twenty pages of something and often think "So what?" But I get my fiction jones from genre fiction (mostly mystery), where a tremendous amount of good writing is happening these days.
posted by rtha at 3:12 PM on June 8, 2007

I remember reading somewheres that MeFi favorite Neal Stephenson reads non-fiction, while MeFi favorite-until-you-read-his-opinions Orson Scott Card reads a reasonable mix of fiction and non-fiction. If you like non-fiction, you'll love Neal Stephenson.

Anyway, dude, just write some fiction every day, without caring if someone's done it before. Somebody has done some part of your work before—you're the one putting it together in new ways.

Finally, what's wrong with writing non-fiction like it's fiction?
posted by infinitewindow at 3:17 PM on June 8, 2007

I have a firm suspicion that no-one doing anything awesome reads more than a negligible amoung of fiction. And that includes people writing awesome fiction. Seriously, if you’re putting sufficient research effort into a book, and you intend to make more than minimum wage, how is there time? And if you’re not making more than minimum wage, what motivation is there to continue writing, if you’re capable enough to do something else and to enjoy it?

(The fiction I read regularly is by John le Carré, Terry Pratchett and Orhan Pamuk. I try to read non-fiction (grammars, travel books, popular dictionaries) much more than fiction, but I don’t always succeed.)
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 3:19 PM on June 8, 2007

There's this great riff in "The Soul of a Chef" (non-fiction, natch) where uber-chef Thomas Keller confesses that he has never tasted one of his most well-known dishes. When probed by the gobsmacked author, Keller has a simple, if snarky, reply:

"I know it tastes good. You don't have to stick your hand in fire to know it's hot."

So, what makes a great fiction author? Is it reading a lot of fiction? Well, I can only offer a qualitative response, which is to say that a great number of successful authors, when pressed on what can make one a good author, respond by saying, "write what you know." It does sound like you know some stuff. Others, when faced with the same question, have talked about the importance of writing a lot. I'm hoping you'll put in the necessary practice and performance?

One of my favorite (perhaps not great, but enjoyable) contemporary fiction authors is Neal Stephenson. I'm not going to tell you to check him out, and I doubt you would last too long anyway, but the point of mentioning him is to say that he does not strike me as a guy that reads a lot of fiction. He strikes me as a guy that reads a lot of non-fiction. I seem to recall him saying something to that effect, once, but I can't find it at the moment.

Anyway, I'm pulling for you. Old Cormac, who has said that he doesn't read a whole lot of other folks' stuff either, he may even be pulling for you, too.

But he probably won't read your stuff.
posted by rush at 3:24 PM on June 8, 2007

I think it would be a serious mistake not to keep reading something. It's my opinion that good writers are always engaged in conversation with something or someone else. One cannot write in a vacuum. It would be more productive, I think, to think of your work "in conversation" with certain writers or works rather than suffering in the shadows cast by them. But who is it you are conversing with? Perhaps these are the fictional works you should be seeking out right now. You don't have to look to the bestseller's list. You don't have to read what everyone else is reading. Read anything! Historical works...ancient texts if that's what will captivate you. And have a bit more patience with some of them. If you're really serious about writing, it's time well spent.
posted by theantikitty at 3:30 PM on June 8, 2007

I have a firm suspicion that no-one doing anything awesome reads more than a negligible amoung of fiction. And that includes people writing awesome fiction.

This is clearly untrue. Actually, I feel extremely competent that any sentence which beings "I have a firm suspicion that non-one doing anything awesome..." will be false. There is far too much variance in how writers operate.

There are great writers who avoid fiction, at least while they are writing, and there are great writers who read everything they can get their hands on.
posted by Justinian at 3:34 PM on June 8, 2007

I actually feel extremely INcompetent. Confident, though...
posted by Justinian at 3:34 PM on June 8, 2007

My general feeling is that most well-respected writing is written as part of an existing tradition, and is to some extent referential of that tradition. This goes along with the idea that a new work should offer something new, which is typically done by building on something existing. To write entirely out of a tradition is possible, but you'll likely cross one at some point, and run the risk, as you said, of writing something that's already been written. It all depends on what you're writing and who your audience is, though. I consider myself fairly broadly read in English/western fiction, and honestly, the more that I read the more I realize that I'm incredibly far away from having anything meaningful to contribute. YMMV.
posted by devilsbrigade at 3:39 PM on June 8, 2007

Are you reading any long, sustained works?

It sounds, from the examples you give, that you're flitting around among short articles and trivia. Which is fine, but does not, in my mind, make you a voracious reader.

I would have doubts about a fiction writer who didn't read any fiction, or who didn't like any fiction, but I could possibly see that working. I would have absolutely no confidence in a fiction writer who didn't read books. Single-author-telling-a-single-story books. I think there are plenty of non-fiction authors who do that just as well (if not better) than many fiction authors, so if you can't maintain interest in a story long enough to read one, I would see no way on earth you could develop the skills to create one that others would want to read.
posted by occhiblu at 3:46 PM on June 8, 2007

In the introductory essay to the collected Schismatrix, Bruce Sterling claims that he doesn't read fiction (at least when gearing up to write fiction; I don't remember exactly how broadly he cast it). Rather, he says, he reads the factual material that forms the basis of his speculations.

It's still probably a good bet to try and read some fiction, though, as your readers are likely to be located within a broader fictional tradition and will want to know how you relate to that. [Insert stuff about how fiction is actually about fiction.]
posted by grobstein at 3:47 PM on June 8, 2007

Every writer is different. If you feel you want to write, just do it. Nagging feelings that you aren't doing it right are coming from the scared part of you that wants to sabotage yourself. Acknowledge these insecurities and then sit down and follow your calling.
posted by bluebird at 4:21 PM on June 8, 2007

I've taken dozens of fiction writing classes and every teacher I've had has encouraged the aspiring writers to read fiction. You can learn a lot about story, character, plot, dialog, etc. from those who are getting published.

One teacher even went so far as to encourage us to spend time reading short stories (it was a short fiction class) rather than books about writing (Bird by Bird, Writing Down the Bones, etc.).

That being said you should look into Francine Prose's (nonfiction) Reading Like a Writer. Not only does she explain why it's a good idea for fiction writers to read fiction, she uses a ton of great examples and explains what you can learn from these examples.
posted by jodic at 5:45 PM on June 8, 2007

If you can't finish reading a novel, you'll never finish writing one. If you can't find a novel worth reading to the end, you haven't looked hard enough. You may find examples of writers who don't read fiction while they are writing but you will never find a great writer of fiction who doesn't love fiction. Their personal canon may be small, and may not overlap with anyone else's, but it most certainly exists. Find yours before you decide to join a fraternaty who's members you have wholly rejected.
posted by gwint at 6:20 PM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

I am sorry, but I don't believe anyone who doesn't like reading fiction can write fiction successfully.

How do you know how to construct a plot? Develop characters? How do you know how language can be moulded and shaped to tell a story? (as opposed to merely conveying an idea)

An ability to construct a sentence is one thing, anyone can do that. But writing fiction, whether it be a short story or a novel is much much more than that.

I agree with gwint. If you can't find a novel you like, then you arn't looking hard enough. If you don't like a book, stop reading it and find another. Not everybody finishes everything they start - but its the thrill of the hunt, to find that piece of literary perfect pitch, that keeps us going.
posted by TheOtherGuy at 6:37 PM on June 8, 2007

I think this is a great question. I can't help much, but I remember hearing a nonfiction writer (for the love of me I can't remember who) in a radio interview saying that a good journalist or nonfiction writer must read fiction.

Anyways, I would suggest that you just keep writing what you want and reading what you want. And join a writing group. Workshop whatever you've written and you'll probably get people saying "This reminds me of (fiction writer X)." Then check fiction writer X out.

As for reasons 1 and 2 that keep you from writing, everyone feels like that. For a long, long time. Jonathan Lethem (good fiction writer, btw) recently said that in order to become a writer, you first have to pretend to be a writer.
posted by Kronoss at 6:39 PM on June 8, 2007

I write fiction (movies) for $$$ but I hardly ever read any.

The same is true of a lot of writers I know.

I also know movie directors who don't watch films.
posted by unSane at 6:58 PM on June 8, 2007

If you like non-fiction, you'll love Neal Stephenson.

That explains why I hate his writing; I like fiction (but I also read and enjoy non-fiction and few non-fiction writers pile cliche atop cliche with the determination Stephenson has for it).

I think the title and content of this book sum up the answer to the question.
posted by birdie birdington at 7:14 PM on June 8, 2007

You say:
I have a fear that what I'm writing, or whatever style I'm attempting, has been written before, and with much greater skill
Come back when you have a plot and the hivemind will tell you what books are similar. Reading everything ever written in some sort of catch-up game seems like a waste of time.
"Imposter Syndrome" shows up in lots of different professions. If you can, try and ignore it until it becomes simply a healthy scrutiny of the merits of your work.
posted by Eringatang at 7:50 PM on June 8, 2007

I'm a writer.

All the writers I know like fiction. That is: we like stories. We retell each other stories we saw on TV, or a great movie idea we were pitched, or something that happened while looking for pants at the GAP.

When I'm actively working on a project, I tend not to read much, and what I do read is mostly non-fiction. But then I go through cycles where I read lots of fiction, too. It's hard for me to imagine going through life not enjoying invented stories.

Do I think it's possible to be a fiction writer who doesn't like fiction? Sure, I guess. Do I think it's possible to be a fiction writer who doesn't like stories? Not so much. So maybe you just don't like the styles of a lot of novels being published today? Do you like short stories? Do you like screenplays? Poems? Is it just novels that bother you?

Having said all of that, I don't think the problem is that you're reading - or not reading - the right things, it's that you're using various things as your excuse not to write. (Welcome to being a writer.)
posted by thehmsbeagle at 7:57 PM on June 8, 2007

Write because you like to write. Try to find as much satisfaction in the activity itself rather than thoughts about it (thoughts like what others have written or who will read you or whether you will read them).

Try reading short fiction that violates expectations/conventions. Donald Barthelme might be one example. Or fiction that tries to be funny.

Try writing creative non-fiction. Read David Sedaris or others.

What kinds of classes did you take as you got your BA? Didn't any of them require fiction?
posted by Vault13 at 8:20 PM on June 8, 2007

I'm not sure what your motivation is to write. What is it that you want to share? I know you have a degree in writing, but are you dedicated to the craft? When you read, is the use of language a major source of pleasure?

If the subject matter is what you enjoy then I think writing non-fiction about the subjects you are interested in is a better match. I suspect that you aren't too interested in genre writing or you wouldn't be concerned with someone else having done what you want to do. If you want to write literary work then the style is a focus. It just doesn't sound like you get much out of reading a beautiful sentence or seeing a well shaped narrative.

Still, if you want to do it, then do. I don't think locating yourself in a tradition is important so I wouldn't worry about that. The fear over being a fraud isn't justified either. It is possible to enjoy producing and not consuming. Not common but possible. The ones that I think are frauds are the ones that have contempt for their audience.
posted by BigSky at 9:53 PM on June 8, 2007

There are probably some excellent fiction writers who don't read fiction, but I'll bet they're exceedingly rare. I used to work for a writers organization with 700-800 members, and I've never met any fiction writers who weren't voracious readers (although many of them don't read, or don't read within their genre, while working on a project).

I don't get why you'd want to produce something that gives you no pleasure.

Why not write non-fiction? There's more of a demand for it, and it's what you enjoy reading. If you want to use the techniques of fiction, you could try creative non-fiction.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:33 PM on June 8, 2007

One of the biggest reasons why aspiring writers are directed to read fiction is that reading the writing of others lets you see how the language can be used. You get to see how other people have manipulated words to mean something beautiful--how meaning can be forced out of these simple words we use day in and day out. Every time you read a creative sentence, your own ability to see how words can be used is increased. It is not that you learn how to copy someone else's style, it is that you learn yet another detail about the possible uses of this language.

Now, sure, it's possible for someone to have such a natural ear for the beauty of language that they can just sit down and create a masterpiece without ever seeing another author's work, but.. That's not most of us. And even that natural would have his abilities improved if he looked at other stories as well.

You read fiction to get to know what fiction can do. If you don't want to read fiction but still want to write it, then, sure! Have fun. But, in the end, the chances are that you won't be as creative as you otherwise could be. You won't have the ability to write what you otherwise would.

The fear isn't so much about writing what someone else has before. In one sense, anything you could possibly say has been said before, some way or another. In another sense, it's impossibly unlikely that the words that you write are an exact duplicate of what someone else has written. Instead, the fear should be that what you're writing isn't interesting.

What is interesting in fiction is different from what is different in non-fiction, which I believe some other people have noted above. Again, if someone only reads non-fiction, it's still possible that he could write fabulous fiction... But whatever your abilities are, they can be improved by reading, examining, and coming to understand the fictional works of others.
posted by Ms. Saint at 9:07 AM on June 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

No. It's not possible. If you want to sell fiction, you have to sell to people who love fiction. You will be competing in the marketplace with other writers who are just as skilled as you in crafting prose, but who understand the target audience, and the finished product in a way you never will.

You love nonfiction. There is a market for nonfiction. Why would you even consider writing fiction?
posted by happyturtle at 10:03 AM on June 10, 2007