I'll go first...I have started doing that for about the past month. I was setting a time goal, but time can be wasted whereas number of pages seems to work better, whether I can write those pages in an hour or five hours. I try to write 5 pages a day in between jobs (I work part time as a programmer/contractor) and 3 pages a day when I do have a job. I do not include weekends, though, because I'm afraid I'll burn out. Usually on Monday I'm refreshed and ready to go. A page for me is single spaced, Timew New Roman, 12 pt. font.

When revising--my goal is 500 good revised words a day. This takes a lot longer than simply banging out the 1,000.

Right now, I only write short stories, and I take at least 1 day off in-between stories, but it's more like 2. Never more than 3, though. If I'm on day 4 and still don't have an idea or two, I just start writing and stop after 4 pages. I do this night after night until something clicks.

And yes, you are correct. Serious writers write at the same time every day and have a goal. But the goal is often different. Flannery O'Connor, for example, wrote from 9-12 every day except Sundays. Ernest Hemingway wrote from 7:30-1:30 every day, and Joseph Conrad wrote eight hours a day. Frederik Polh wrote 4 pages a day and Stephen King writes 2,000 words a day.

The key think is you have to get a system and stick with it. If you're a clock watcher, then write for a certain period of time and stop. If you're believe in production, set up a numerical goal--either pages or words.

One last item. I find it hard to believe writer's don't take time off. Stephen King has said that he does, in fact, take time off in-between novels, and I'm sure O'Connor, Hemingway, and Polh also took time off. What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't feel bad about taking weekends off. If you're witing 4 pages a day, that's still 20 pages a week. The ultimate point of the rule that says serious writers write every day is that serious writers have consistent work habits.

You're right--you have to sit down every day at the same time to write. If you don't, you'll end up not writing every day. When you're working a full-time job, or when you're a stay-at-home parent with two small children (like me), mostly likely you're not going to be writing when you're at your best. But you have to do it when you can if you want to succeed.

The commitment to write every day (which is really a commitment to stick to your writing schedule) is really what separates "the men from the boys," so to speak (I know, that's not PC, but I couldn't bring myself to make it inclusive--sorry!). Writing is a lot like being a musician or being an athlete. It's impossible to get really good if you don't practice or workout every day. Andre Segovia used to practice six hours a day, and that was when he was internationally known. And Tiger Woods works out the day after winning a tournament! And every successful writer writes daily.

2.

Let's open this thread up a bit and discuss the second fundamental habit of writing--reading. From everything I've read by writers on writing, there are two fundamental rules for writing that come up repeatedly--without exception. Read a lot, write a lot. Different people will say different things about these habits, but without fail every professional writer agrees that these are the habits that must be cultivated if you want to succeed.

With that in mind, has anyone out there developed a reading habit? Do you just read what you want, or have you developed a reading plan?

I have a reading plan--nothing too rigid, but a plan nonetheless. The basic formula is this. I alternate between speculative novels and literature (the great authors of the past, e.g., Hemingway, Faulkner, Greene, Twain, Homer, O'Conner, etc.) When I read a speculative novel, I read literature short stories, and when I read a literary novel, I read speculative short stories.

My second rule is this: I'm working my way through all of the great speculative fiction I haven't read--i.e., all of the Hugo and Nebula award-winning novels, and all of the stories found in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame as well as the two Dangerous Visions anthologies. I also subscribe to The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction and Asimov's and read every story in them.

It sounds like a lot, but it really doesn't feel like much. The more I read, the better I write. It seems that all those professional writers know what they're talking about.

Well, there's 2 parts to this, quantity of reading and type of reading. Personally, I'm reading less than I should right now. (2 reason, major life changes + I've just picked upa really long, slow series) In general, I like to read 1 novel a week and I'm going to start reading several short stories, although that's a new addition.

As to type of reading. Well, I have to admit, I'm not well read outside of science fiction and fantasy. To be honest, I haven't figured out why most classic literature has stood the test of time. I've liked some of it, but I've never loved any of it.

So, here's a question....what is important to read and why? Is it more important for me to read things that I enjoy so I can use them as examples of what I like? Or should I be reading things that are popular because everyone else thinks they're good and I should figure out why? (I'm not just talking classic literature...there are some scifi authors that people love and I abhor.) Or maybe a little of both? Any thoughts?

1. WHY READ THE CLASSICS?

I'm going to arbitrarily say that a classic is anything written before 1900. Yes, I know, this will automatically cancel out many great literary figures -- Joyce, Hemingway, Faulkner, Greene, O'Connor, Waugh, etc. That's fine with me; I hope it's fine with you.

Reading the classics is what I like to call "literary formation." The fact that a certain piece of fiction have stood the test of time -- George Eliot's Middlemarch, for example -- means that it have the qualities of true fiction: a compelling story, intriguing people, moral and spiritual depth, a graceful writing style. Yes, there will be "classics" that you won't like, but one has to cultivate a taste for great literature. And to do that you have to read several authors. You may abhor Austen but adore Dickens; you may come to loathe Hawthorne but love Twain; you may find French literature commonplace and Russian literature compelling. That's fine. No one is saying you have to like every story every told. But serious writers read or have read these classics.

I'm looking at a list of Great Books, so here's a list of authors you should check out: Homer, Vergil, Horace, Dante, Chaucer, Cervantes, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Moliere, Swift, Fielding, Sterne, Austen, Balzac, Hawthorne, Dickens, Eliot, Melville, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, Tolstoy, and Twain.

What about the literature written after 1900? The reason I left these writers out is because I don't know if they have really "stood the test of time." My personal favorites all happen to be Catholic novelists -- Evelyn Waugh, Graham Greene, Flannery O'Connor, Walker Percy, Jon Hassler. I'm also partial to James Joyce, Ernest Hemingway, and William Faulkner. My suggestion here would be to read the "big names," and if you don't like it, forget it. But I would seriously try to cultivate a taste for literature though reading the pre-1900 classics.

One last word -- the backbone of a classics reading list are the following:

• Homer, Iliad and Odyssey
• Vergil, Aeneid
• Dante, The Divine Comedy
• John Milton, Paradise Lost
• The Bible, the Pentateuch and Wisdom Literature of the OT, and the entire NT
• William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, Henry IV & V, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Measure for Measure, Tempest, King Lear, Othello, Twelfth Night, As You Like It, Anthony and Cleopatra, Richard III.
  

2. WHICH SF/F TO READ?

Here, I'm going to repeat what OSC says because I think he's correct. If you want to write science fiction and fantasy, you need to read every story in both Science Fiction Hall of Fames, and every story in Dangerous Visions and Again, Dangerous Visions. These four anthologies will give you the backbone of the genre. The Science Fiction Hall of Fames will supply you with the greatest short fiction before Harlen Ellison brought about the New Wave when he published the Dangerous Visions anthologies. And the Dangerous Vision anthologies define the direction the genre has taken since late 1960's. There's about 30 stories in each one, so you should be able to read all four in five months.

Along these same lines, you need to read every Hugo and Nebula award winner. OSC didn't qualify if he meant novels, novellas, novelette, and short stories, or just novels. I took it to mean the novels, so that's what I'll preach. If you haven't read these novels, you won't know what has already been done, and you won't know what can be done.

What else? Again, I think OSC is correct in saying that you need to get a subscription to at least two of the following -- Analog, The Magazine of F+SF, or Asimov's. If you pick up a "year's best" anthology, you'll see that the majority of stories selected come from one of these three magazine. Interzone is another big one, but nothing like the other three.

If you're really into the medieval fantasy tradition -- sword and sorcery and heroic fantasy -- you're pretty much on your own. I would subscribe to both Black Gate and Realms of Fantasy, but as far as which novels to read, there's no set list I know of.

3. FINAL THOUGHTS

If you want to be a writer, you must read. If you want to be a good writer, you must read the greatest stories ever written. And if you want to be a good SF/F writer, you must read not only the best SF/F stories, but also the stories that have defined the genre. When you write SF/F, you are (un)consciously entering into a century-old conversation filled the ideas about science, religion, technology, the past, and the future. I know this is going to sound very academic, but you read the foundational SF/F stories not only to "study the market," but to also discover what has been said and what needs to be said.

Now that it's summer, though, I'm consistently hovering between 1000-1500 words.

And a comprehensive list of Nebula/Hugo winners can be found here: http://dpsinfo.com/awardweb/awardwebsitelist.html

As for the classics, I've read most of your list. I like Twain, Hawthorne was ok, and I understand what people liked about Shakespeare (although I didn't love it myself), but I couldn't spend half my reading life on these kinds of books.

You're right, there is a definite need to study and appreciate these authors whose works have stood the test of time. Especially if you want your work to be more than a here today, gone tomorrow, make a buck sort of novel. Then again, it's the studying that's important, not so much the simple reading. Let me see if I can be more clear. I read the Illiad and the Oddyssey when I was rather young. (Too young, to be honest, I need to reread them.) I didn't study them. I think the stories were compelling but I don't have a real sense of what made them great. This is no help.

Even if you don't like a book, studying it should reveal what everyone else thinks is so good about it. Reading just gets you through it so you can say you read it. It doesn't make you any better off than a person who never heard of the book. Also, through study, you can learn things about the times a novel was written in, whether it was appreciated in those times and why (or why not).

I think people read novels, they don't study them. It seems to me that most of the best novels of *today* are about the compallig story, not so much about morals, writing style, or depth of story or characterization. People would rather read an action packed spy thriller than something that forces them to look hard at their own souls. The greatest authors, in my opinion, manage to combine these things, but the classics have not always done so. I think this may be why a lot of classics were never truly appreciated in their own times. It takes real study to appreciate them, and a willingness to look hard at who we are as people. Sometimes they do not show us, as Star Trek loves to do, that we are great, highly evolved people. Sometimes the truth is not what we want to hear.

Christine -- Yes, you're correct: some authors need to be studied. Homer is a great example. But what I've found helpful isn't the study of individual works or authors per se, but the study of fiction in general. Some of the books I've found helpful are:

• Aristotle, Poetics
• Flannery O'Connor, Mystery and Manners
• John Gardner, On Moral Fiction, The Art of Fiction
• E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel
• Erich Auerbach, Mimesis
• Wayne Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction
• Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, Understanding Fiction
• C. S. Lewis, An Experiment in Criticism, The Discarded Image
  

As far as what readers want to read . . . well, I don't care what they want to read. I write what I would want to read, and that means trying to write well crafted science fiction and fantasy stories with elegant prose and deep characterization. And as far as trying to write what readers want to read, you can never anticipate what the Common Reader is going to like. Publishing companies were blown away by the success of Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose in 1980, and I think people are equally stunned by the success some "literary" authors have seen after being endorsed by Oprah. (As a marketing study, see if John Steinbeck's sales suddenly surge now that Oprah has endorsed his East of Eden.)

quote:

---

Yes, there will be "classics" that you won't like, but one has to cultivate a taste for great literature. – Balthasar

---

I have always had a problem with this need to "Cultivate a taste" for something. Especially something that is subjective, like literature. You maybe able to come to appreciate elements of its form, to understand what other people like about it, but will it really ever "speak" to you? And I’m not sure, on a personal level, that a piece of literature that does not speak to you in some way can ever truly be great.

It’s something akin to listening to a piece of music, or looking a piece of art. When you come in contact with it, something just clicks. You don’t start to look at painting by analyzing the brush-stroke technique. Maybe later, and that may make you appreciate it, but in that initial moment of connection its about how it affects you. When it stirs something within, that’s where an individual finds greatness.

I will go ahead and admit that most classic literature I’ve read left me completely cold. There were those that I loved – Milton’s Paradise Lost, Faulkner’s Sound and the Furry, Hardy’s Return of the Native, for example -- but most I slogged though as though the pages were made of lead. Some, through contemplation, and class discussion, I could appreciate as being good, even if I didn’t like them (Fitzgerald’s Great Gadsby comes to mind). For many others, nothing ever redeemed the lost reading hours.

Nothing wrong with reading classics. Probably a good idea on several levels (Like being educated in the field). But knowing how I’ve reacted in the past to them, I’m not sure how much I would learn from them as a writer. So many times there was nothing I connected to that I want to figure out how to bring to my own writing. Why do I want to figure out how to write a story I don’t want to read? Because that’s the foremost goal of my writing. I want to write stories I want to read. Hopefully they speak to other people too, but I can’t really control that. I have no illusions that this plan will lead to any sort of traditional greatness, but being personally satisfied is enough for me to live with, and something I actual do have some control over.

[/soap box rant]

I think one thing that reading the classics, especially as Balthasar has defined them, is always going to bring you up short with, is what are the modern conventions of prose. They aren’t stagnate. POV styles have gone in and out of fashion. Pacing has changed. Usage of dialog and description varies. Reader expectations are simply different now. Only more current fiction is going to give you insight into that.

quote:

---

If you want to be a good writer, you must read the greatest stories ever written. – Balthasar

---

And you must read the worst. You can learn a great deal by seeing what not to do. It’s often a clearer example.

I think there is something to recommend reading whatever catches your interest. And that interest should be cast in as wide a range as possible. Read a bit of everything, to see what is out there. I’ve been trying to read more of the Nebula/Hugo winners, but I’ve also been picking up various other sorts of work across the reading spectrum. I’ve also got a pile of nonfiction for background work in my to-read stack.

quote:

---

If you're really into the medieval fantasy tradition -- sword and sorcery and heroic fantasy -- you're pretty much on your own. I would subscribe to both Black Gate and Realms of Fantasy, but as far as which novels to read, there's no list I know of. – Balthasar

---

Well, you can read the source material -- Beowolf and Gawin(sp?) and the Green Knight, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, the Chivalry Romances. Read the first chapter of Paradise Lost for the sheer drama of the description of the fallen angels. Look at the Greek and Roman epics, and their mythology. Celtic and British folklore. History of the era. All of that would create a great foundation for building something in the epic tradition. It would be great in looking at the scope of the plot, the sort of base characters traditionally involved, and the conventions that part of the fantasy field is built on.

More modern stuff – You’d probably better read Tolkein. And then Terry Brooks’s first Trilogy of Shannara, which came out marketed to build off Tolkein’s popularity. That would give a basis for where some of today’s stuff is growing out of. Then hopefully you will go off and do something totally different. (Sorry – I’m not a big fan of either of those recommendations, but they come up time and time again as measuring sticks. It’s part of that education thing. And then there are a lot of people that really like them.)

I’m not sure who would be a must-read of the rest of the popular authors (I could give opinions, but I don’t have much to back them up with beyond personal conviction). One I will mention, since it might not be obvious, is Frank Herbert’s Dune.

quote:

---

As far as what readers want to read . . . well, I don't care what they want to read. I write what I would want to read, and that means trying to write well crafted science fiction and fantasy stories with elegant prose and deep characterization

---

I, too, write what I would want to read. There's no other possible way to write. This means 2 things to me. First, that I should read a wide variety of things to discover what it is that I like to read and make a study of what I liked about it. Second, that I shouldn't spend too much time trying to cultivate a taste for anything I don't like, because even if I come to appreciate it I'll never feel passionate about it.

There are amny examples of elegant writing styles out there. There are many examples of well done characterizations and plots. There are also many people who will never appreciate any of these things because their entire life teachers forced class literature down their throats and told them "this is good and if you don't think so you're not very bright." Probably not in those exact words but that's the message I received.

What you two are doing is not writing what people want to read, but studying the craft of fiction as you read. A perfectly acceptable and time-honored practice. In fact, I do this all the time, regardless of what I'm reading. I try to stay conscious of how a particular author uses a phrase, or makes a transition, or creates suspense, or character, or whatever. The only way you can learn how to write is by reading and then by imitating what you have read as you write. But this imitation is more an imitation of technique rather than trying to write fiction that you think people want to read.

When a writer makes the conscious effort to what people want to read -- and by this I mean, when a writer wants to write stories that make money -- the writer looks at the NY Times best-selling list and sees, say, John Grisham, and decides to write a lawyer-mystery-thriller; or the writer sees Stephen King and decides to write a Kingesque horror novel. That is how hacks or made.

So don't worry about trying to imitate the techniques you learn while reading successful writers. Just don't try to write an "in the tradition of . . ." novel.

Balthasar does however have a point in the fact that the more authors you read and the more you work at writing "like them" the more your style will meld with theirs and truly become your own.

Now I ran the gauntlet of like other authors I read--but--I read mostly mysterys and I write alt-history.

Now i have my own style.

By all accounts, she wrote 23 of the first 30 Nancy Drew books, which I assume means those 30 were the older ones as opposed to the stuff being written today -- which in my biased opinion is a travesty. Nancy Drew should never have made the jump to modern times. <sigh>

Poor Mildred signed a contract for only $125 per book -- no royalties -- and agreed not to reveal her identity. The fact that she signed away the rights to the name, Carolyn Keene, to me suggests she was truly the original author, although I read that she was given brief outlines to write -- the rest of the books? -- by.