What very little I know about writing I learned from Faulkner, by studying this sentence:

Shreve was coming up the walk, shambling, fatly earnest, his glasses glinting beneath the running leaves like little pools.

humanodon:

    Let the writer take up surgery or bricklaying if he is interested in technique. There is no mechanical way to get the writing done, no shortcut. The young writer would be a fool to follow a theory. Teach yourself by your own mistakes; people learn only by error. The good artist believes that nobody is good enough to give him advice. He has supreme vanity. No matter how much he admires the old writer, he wants to beat him.

This is what many writing programs sell: technique. In my experience, a lot of kids in writing programs think that theory and technique will therefore lead to ability, much in the way that people who lift weights, paying meticulous attention to form sometimes think that exercise will lead to Strength. Strength is an extension of will, supported by the body and the mind, but strengthening either the body, the mind or both are useless without will and application. Anyway, exercises should lead to utility.

Obviously, I am not a successful writer, but what he says about vanity rings true in my mind. If it weren't, then I have no idea why anyone would write, since writing is an act of projecting one's realities on to the world.


posted 3857 days ago