quote:

---

Do not write anything until you are 30 as you will have absolutely nothing to say.

---

I wrote too at a young age and everyone around went awwww isn't that cute. In Jr High I got told to "put that junk away and get your school work done" grades were not a problem--so I guess my weird stories bugged them.

In Highs School, when I took Creative Writing---I was elated, finally I could write and someone would understand, someone would like and grade me for it. Yikes, the teacher was an idiot, and I got in more trouble for the unsettling weird, not healthy things I wrote.

SO by 30, well I don't know that I think he meant not to write until you are 30. Perhaps not to bother showing it to anyone before then. But by 30 you finally realize that you write for you and not everyone else and if they put you down for it, you can smile and shrug and walk away. At less than that, you take yourself to seriously. Rejections are harder to take and so on.

But, I have heard that past a certain age publishers are reluctant to make the investment.

<shrug>

Not much help JK, other than to say I think it depends on how much support you get and the people around you.

I suspect he was being glib, and glibness (is that a word?) should be taken with a grain of salt.

I have told people under 18 who have asked to be in a writers group here that one of the reasons for the separation is that adult writers should be able to look for feedback from people with a little experience in life.

(For what it's worth, I think a good cut-off point might be when a person has survived puberty and/or become responsible. Being 30 certainly doesn't guarantee that a person has achieved the latter.)

Perhaps what Joe Queenan means is that a person under 30 wouldn't have anything to say that he would be interested in hearing. (Again, that's being glib.)

A person with that kind of attitude is going to miss out on a lot of wonderful stuff.

But it's his loss. Pity him.

You do need some sort of insight though. Which is an individually based thing for when (if) it arrives. And the kind of insight needed would totally depend on the sort of story being attempted. Really, who better than an 8 year to know what wishes lurk in the hearts of children? A 30 year old may well have forgotten. But then there are some topics that only experience is going to do justice to. Not that 30 is any sure measure of the right experience, but you’ve been around the block a few time by then probably.

quote:

---

Physically spending 30 years on this earth is not guarantees for anything. It probably just means your getting a bit tired…

---

Tired? At 30? Let me guess you are under 20.

As someone well past 30--I have adult children and young grandchildren---you are only as tired as you let yourself get.

The tired comment sprung out of a running joke among my circle of friends that we just can’t stay up like we used to in college. Which probably has much less to do with our ages than with having to get up earlier every morning. But working with that warped logic, if I’m 25 and a bit tired, 30… well…you see where my thoughts were going.

Many a truth is told in jest and perhaps also with the careless ease being fairly or unfairly attributed to Joe Queenan.

A truth here is that a writer is greatly influenced by what they have or have not experienced. Imagination accounts for much, but even that is influenced by experience. And experience often comes year-by-year. But I don't think 30 is particularly a magic number.

The lesson here is that a writer should start stockpiling experiences--remembering them, studying them, perhaps writing them down in a notebook or diary.

And these experiences come directly and indirectly. Some come directly by actualy experiencing them youself and others come from reading about the experiences of imaginary and real people from books. I think it is very difficult to be a great writer unless you are also a tireless reader.

But Kathleen is absolutely right about writing. I don't know exactly what kind of writer I am, but I know I used to be worse than I am now, after having written millions of words (I'm older than 30).

One truth is that you get better with practice, so waiting until you are 30 to write is bad advice. Young people and those of any age should write and write and put their work in a file somewhere. Now writing and publishing may or may not be completely a different story.

Today, I am still pulling from old files, items from notebooks I filled decades ago and stories I wrote in high school and refining this gold into born-again stories.

Bravo!

The comment raised is glib. The point of merit perhaps being suggested is that life experience equips a person in good stead, not simply as a writer but as a human being as well.

Setting age boundaries is definitely artificial though - I've met 15 year olds who have a greater maturity and breadth of experience than some 55 year olds. It's all down to the individual.

No matter how old a person is, there will always be someone older ready to patronise the others' existence.

It's no longer about age, it's about the lack of intelligence in a person who thinks a number of years tells you anything besides how many candles to put on a cake and how many presidental elections you voted for the wrong candidate.

Trust me, there are people who are reaching the golden anniversary of when they started writing bad hack novels that flood the shelves.

I think 18 is the stupidest cut off age anyone could have possibly concocted. 16, 20, both would be better, but no, we had to average it and pick 18.

Trust me, 18 is nothing. You're really not any smarter at 18 than you were at 17 and you're not much smarter at 20.

And no, you don't officially get to be smart at 30 or mature. Mature isn't when you can't put anymore candles on the cake.

Mature is when you actively try to be a decent human being. Whatever age that might be for you. Some learn it very early on. Some never learn it at all.

I don't care what people say age, young or old. I ignore them and keep on typing. I've got better things to do. Like this short story. And no, I'm not going to wait x number of years to publish it. It's ready to go now.

(+/-) Georgie

<~ ~>

"My young way was never the way to age."

- Sydney Carton

"Tale of Two Cities"

I'm only fifteen. I write. I haven't done all that much, haven't had any grand hollywood experiences. I still write. In fact, now that I'm over my old paranoia of people not liking it, I even show people my writing. One day I'll even submit something to a publisher. It will be before I'm thirty. It will probably be before I'm eighteen. Heck, it may be as soon as a month or two.

You submit your work when you feel that you're ready to do so. If you think your work is good, if you think you can handle a rejection slip, or more importantly, the comments people will make once your work is published, then by all means, submit.

That's one point that I've never heard mentioned before though. Everyone always talks about rejection; about how awful it feels to recieve nothing but a form letter, or how worthless you feel because the publisher disliked your story. The thing that I always think of though, is that your story is going to be put on trial once again after it's been published. It doesn't end when the publisher mails you a check, there's still a chance that your readers won't like the story. If enough people don't like your story it can ruin your name far more thuroughly than a petty little slip. Maybe I have this wrong though; like I said, I haven't actuialy read about it, it's just an observation and a guess.

So my personal view on this whole age deal-- and you can take it or leave it, I'm not here to convert, just to state an opinion-- is that anyone of any age should be able to write, but if you showcase your work in a venue with certain standards, you need to understand that your work will be judged by those standards only; 'good for your age' just isn't going to cut it.

quote:

---

'good for your age' just isn't going to cut it.

---