Does teen writing suck?

[graystripe79]

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/06/18/on-teens-and-the-fact-their-writing-sucks/

In the link above, this man whom is a writer in his thirties, is trying to say that all teen writing sucks because we're young. I can agree with this to a point. We teens still have a lot to learn, but I think it's unwise to assume that all teen writers write crappy stuff. What do you-my fellow teen writers- have to say? Do you think that our writing sucks?

[Dabs]

I have to agree with him. I don't think I've ever seen a teen writer create something wholly good or interesting. However, everyone sucks at one point. Writing is a skill, not a talent. You have to practice to get good, and there are always improvements to be made, even after you're published. There's also the matter of life experience. Generally, as you get older, you're exposed to a broader range of people and experiences, not to mention people who are more comfortable in their own skin (making their personalities a bit more subtle).

I'm being general, of course, but I've never seen an exception to this, and don't say Christopher Paolini, because I can barely make it through a paragraph of his work, and he's incredibly unoriginal.

[graystripe79]

Dabs, I guess I didnt have a certian teen writer in mind. I guess I just feel like this man is trying to say that we suck at writing because we are teens. Why are we seen as bad writers because of our age? Age is just a number baby. Its how hard you work, and your passion for writing that makes the story good. Not just how old you are and how many life experences you've had. I think that teens today get their fair share of experences. We have sex, we do drugs and drink, we learn to drive, we have jobs same as adults.

[Carraka]

Scalzi is brilliantly funny, by the way. I read his science fiction and enjoy it. Highly recommended.

And I agree, but I wouldn't have put it in as harsh terms as he did.

[lalodragon]

I really like the article.

[FayGee]

It's a known fact that in general, someone who is older would be better at something than a young person is. So it a sense, this guy is right. But on the other hand, it's not always true -- let's say that A, who is 31, simply has no potential to write -- none at all, he just isn't going to be as good as X the 15-year-old, who has been a member of YWO for three years and has (if only just) average talent, which is being developed each day. Even without trying, he's a much better writer than A.

[Clawfire]

However, everyone sucks at one point. Writing is a skill, not a talent. You have to practice to get good, and there are always improvements to be made, even after you're published.

I have to agree. Writing is not something that you are either good at or aren't. It's something you practice over time and I actually doubt that Scalzi, or anyone, has the right to say that someone else's writing sucks, no matter the age group or anything else. There will always be someone who writes better than you and someone who writes worse than you. I know a lot of teens say that their work is bad all the time, me included, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to say that their writing sucks without a proper argument, which there is none in this case. I think that to say that the millions of teens around the globe's writing bad, out of which maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands of them, write, is going seriously overboard. (OK... That sentence kind of didn't make any sense, but whatever...)

There's also the matter of life experience. Generally, as you get older, you're exposed to a broader range of people and experiences, not to mention people who are more comfortable in their own skin (making their personalities a bit more subtle).


But technically, teens are exposed to more people than adults cause teens interact with young children through to old adults. Adults don't exactly interact much with young children, for instance, because even though they have kids, they don't actually get to know lots of other kids, unlike us. Sure, they also get to know their kids friends, but how many friends can a kid have? I don't have anything to say about the experience, cause adults do have lots of experience, but actually, now I think of it, everyone has their own unique experiences, be it having an awkward break up or be it bungee jumping for the first time. Everyone has different experiences, so you can't say that adults have more experience cause there will always be a younger kid who could come up to you and say "I've starved from hunger" when they've been living a normal, middle-class life. Same as teens. Everyone has got their story to share when it comes to experiences.

So yeah. I do agree that teenage writing can be improved with time and practice, but it does not suck like Scalzi said.

[Georgy]

I don't see any valor in saying all teen writing sucks and I don't like this arrogant calloused clichés
If I were not write garbage, I would not train on the YWO, I would have published books But I can't agree with the author's implicit neglect which offends more than promotes teen to work on improvement writing skill.

[Bowie20049]

It's so weird how people can take the statement so seriously though. He doesn't know you and obviously, his article is appealing to a certain audience. When I read it for the first time, I chuckled a little to myself and thought, "Well, I'm obviously not pro at writing and I probably do suck compared to most published authors. Let's see what he has to say to improve it."

At least, I thought that's what his audience should've thought.

[Dabs]

Dabs, I guess I didnt have a certian teen writer in mind. I guess I just feel like this man is trying to say that we suck at writing because we are teens. Why are we seen as bad writers because of our age? Age is just a number baby. Its how hard you work, and your passion for writing that makes the story good. Not just how old you are and how many life experences you've had. I think that teens today get their fair share of experences. We have sex, we do drugs and drink, we learn to drive, we have jobs same as adults.

Everything you listed as an experience doesn't really mean much. There's more depth to an experience than having sex or getting drugged up. There's a reason that, generally speaking, adults are considered more mature, and why they understand things differently than we do. If you're just going to simplify experience then there might as well be no difference in anyone. Yet, that's not true.

Also, teens have been screwing, drinking, driving, working, and drugging for decades upon decades. Teenage rebellion isn't a new concept by any stretch of the imagination.

I have to agree. Writing is not something that you are either good at or aren't. It's something you practice over time and I actually doubt that Scalzi, or anyone, has the right to say that someone else's writing sucks, no matter the age group or anything else. There will always be someone who writes better than you and someone who writes worse than you. I know a lot of teens say that their work is bad all the time, me included, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to say that their writing sucks without a proper argument, which there is none in this case. I think that to say that the millions of teens around the globe's writing bad, out of which maybe hundreds, maybe even thousands of them, write, is going seriously overboard. (OK... That sentence kind of didn't make any sense, but whatever...)



But technically, teens are exposed to more people than adults cause teens interact with young children through to old adults. Adults don't exactly interact much with young children, for instance, because even though they have kids, they don't actually get to know lots of other kids, unlike us. Sure, they also get to know their kids friends, but how many friends can a kid have? I don't have anything to say about the experience, cause adults do have lots of experience, but actually, now I think of it, everyone has their own unique experiences, be it having an awkward break up or be it bungee jumping for the first time. Everyone has different experiences, so you can't say that adults have more experience cause there will always be a younger kid who could come up to you and say "I've starved from hunger" when they've been living a normal, middle-class life. Same as teens. Everyone has got their story to share when it comes to experiences.

So yeah. I do agree that teenage writing can be improved with time and practice, but it does not suck like Scalzi said.

The older you are, the more time you've had to practice things. I'm talking about people who are writers, not just teens in general. My writing professor is in his 40's, therefore he has practiced much more than I have.

Teens are, by no stretch of the imagination, exposed to more people than adults are. I've never heard of teens willfully interacting with children. Adults interact with children because adults are responsible for children. Adults interact with people their own age because, hey, that's who their contemporaries are. Adults interact with elderly people because maybe their boss is elderly, or maybe their in-laws are elderly, or maybe their parents are. Teens don't really hang out with elderly people. Yes, I am making generalizations and I'm sure there are exceptions to my rule.

Yes, people have different experiences. However, the number of experiences you have gives you a greater repertoire, and lets you consider more things when you're creating a story.

[Fi]

I feel it important to clarify here that the author of this article clarifies that he refers to "most" teenage writing, and as a result, I will have to agree. However, to restore balance, I would like to refer you to a few authors who were teenagers and whose work is truly great, or, even if you perhaps aren't fond of it, has been given some literary credit.

1. The Bronte Sisters

No, Jane Eyre wasn't written when Charlotte was a teenager. The ones that were written are the lesser known Tales of Angria and The Green Dwarf. I will concede that neither of these are Ms. Bronte's best work, but, having read them, I would say the constructs of fantasy created in Tales of Angria rival much adult fantasy I have read. A short exerpt from a review I found follows:

Frenetique? Indeed. Reread chapter 23 of Jane Eyre. This is that Charlotte Bronte: vivid, charming, disjointed, and funny. "Stancliffe's Hotel" is hilarious, the gray pearl at the center of this collection, but each of the tales has its charms.

2. Rimbaud

First works published before he was even 17. Sometimes called the "Father of Modern Poetry". Need I say more?


Now I appreciate these are exceptions and not rules, but just look around this site. You find writers like Caleb (Peppermental), Carraka, Lily. Teenagers, or those who recently left teenager-hood. Their writing may not be perfect, but I wouldn't say it's awful. Parts of their work rival big name authors, and we must remember that even adult authors have room to improve. (And also to remember that much published work is like us comparing our novel to a model - they've had a team of make-up artists, hair dressers and publicists making it great.)

As to experience, I won't deny it's an advantage, but let us think of Austen and Bronte for a second, who grew up in isolated places etc etc etc. Everyone gets different sets of experience, and at different rates. It just so happens that some teenagers do not have the maturity to write, and some do. Then again, this extends to adults. Here's one bombshell you don't hear dropped a lot: most adult's writing sucks too. There isn't a switch between being a teenager and being an adult where you suddenly evolve like a bipedial bulbasaur. Essentially, once you've read a bit, lived a bit, and can communicate words, the chances are you've got the ability to become a good writer, it's just that sometimes the "living a bit" takes longer than others. I do object to this line being drawn at teenage years, but there is truth in what was said.

[Bowie20049]

Frankenstein was written when that person was 18

[Ransom Rhymer]

The guy is right at the end of the day. All of our writing needs improvements otherwise we wouldn't be seeking help with it. Yes he's a little harsh about it but it's the brutal truth the sooner we accept his argument the sooner we can change this.

[Dabs]

Now I appreciate these are exceptions and not rules, but just look around this site. You find writers like Caleb (Peppermental), Carraka, Lily. Teenagers, or those who recently left teenager-hood. Their writing may not be perfect, but I wouldn't say it's awful. Parts of their work rival big name authors, and we must remember that even adult authors have room to improve. (And also to remember that much published work is like us comparing our novel to a model - they've had a team of make-up artists, hair dressers and publicists making it great.)


To further your point--we're also only seeing early drafts of these writers' works (generally speaking). Stories usually go through several drafts before looking publishable.

[Rhozyna]

i don't think teen writing sucks at all.i have classmates who write well.
i do too.we can publish our books and dedicate them to this man and make sure he reads them then we tie him up and make him confess that teens are the best writers.
*grin*

[Georgy]

i don't think teen writing sucks at all.i have classmates who write well.
i do too.we can publish our books and dedicate them to this man and make sure he reads them then we tie him up and make him confess that teens are the best writers.
*grin*

It would be too great honour for Sc. to dedicate the book to him. You may simply present him your book. That will do absolutely enough.

[FayGee]

i don't think teen writing sucks at all.i have classmates who write well.
i do too.we can publish our books and dedicate them to this man and make sure he reads them then we tie him up and make him confess that teens are the best writers.
*grin*

Ooh, before you do it, make sure to contact me so I can be there. :devious:

[umbreon2000]

I know I'm not qualified as a "teen" but I'll still say that teen writing doesn't suck, I've read enough on this website to find that out.

And how can he just say that ALL teen writers suck? Do they suck when they are my age too? :(

[Ethereal-Catalyst]

Honestly, I agree with Scalzi. I am only fifteen myself, but I know that every time I look back on a piece of writing I did at a past time in my life, it looks incredibly...stupid. I don't think that all teen writing sucks, but I think I can say that a massive portion of it could be improved. After all, the more you work, the better you get. When you're a teen, you haven't actually had a whole lot of time to truly work on your writing skills. So he could have been a bit less harsh, but then again, he didn't originally come out fists flying. He made an article first, and then he got angry at the many teens not really focusing on the issue at hand. They took offense first and thought later, even if it is a bit cliche.

[Julian]

What is the point of this 'debate'? Clearly those who have not read the article as a whole will probably be against it and post on unfair judgement. He does not mean that teen writing inherently sucks; he rationalises this by our lack of years of overall living. He then concludes that our lack of experience is a gift, and this 'sudden realisation' will help us effectively flourish as writers by working harder, being meticulous, etc. By sucking, he means that our current writing skills will be 100000x when we grow older, regardless if we're better than most writers. Maybe you are that good, but imagine your skills in ten years.

Indeed, if you think living at 13 is hard, then consider the time before you. If you think that you're having it hard compared to most people, think again.If you think your writing is better than most people you're age, then you might be right to a certain extent. But most of the time, you're comparing yourself to the more crappier writers.

It is extremely pretentious for teenager to consider themselves to be mature for their age. This sense of maturity ironically creates an immaturity only older people can fully see, bordering on snobbishness (i.e pseudo-intellectuality). And what this writer is trying to communicate is this aspect in our hormonal psyches; our shortcomings to fully realise the level of our writing and the lack of insight of the future. Those who think that they are good writers and get rejected experience more burnout than those who are more realistic.

Also, our lack of knowledge hinders our evaluative critical skills. This is self-explanatory; you can't judge an economical problem if you don't know shit about economics. Protesting is a different subject.



A simple analogy that'd make everything simpler to understand.

Writing is like maths; you have to learn a series of formulae and study a vast number of systems in order to fully master the skill.

Or, it can be like muscles that need constant training, which then have to adapt to certain biological factors. In other words, the exercises we do have to accommodate with our health and age (e.g metabolism, stamina, etc.).



Of course, many exceptions exist but if you consider yourself to be one, then you're just being delusional. This world is made on generalisation, and this is by far one of the more useful generalisations.

[Dabs]

What is the point of this 'debate'? Clearly those who have not read the article as a whole will probably be against it and post on unfair judgement. He does not mean that teen writing inherently sucks; he rationalises this by our lack of years of overall living. He then concludes that our lack of experience is a gift, and this 'sudden realisation' will help us effectively flourish as writers by working harder, being meticulous, etc. By sucking, he means that our current writing skills will be 100000x when we grow older, regardless if we're better than most writers. Maybe you are that good, but imagine your skills in ten years.

Indeed, if you think living at 13 is hard, then consider the time before you. If you think that you're having it hard compared to most people, think again.If you think your writing is better than most people you're age, then you might be right to a certain extent. But most of the time, you're comparing yourself to the more crappier writers.

It is extremely pretentious for teenager to consider themselves to be mature for their age. This sense of maturity ironically creates an immaturity only older people can fully see, bordering on snobbishness (i.e pseudo-intellectuality). And what this writer is trying to communicate is this aspect in our hormonal psyches; our shortcomings to fully realise the level of our writing and the lack of insight of the future. Those who think that they are good writers and get rejected experience more burnout than those who are more realistic.

Also, our lack of knowledge hinders our evaluative critical skills. This is self-explanatory; you can't judge an economical problem if you don't know shit about economics. Protesting is a different subject.



A simple analogy that'd make everything simpler to understand.

Writing is like maths; you have to learn a series of formulae and study a vast number of systems in order to fully master the skill.

Or, it can be like muscles that need constant training, which then have to adapt to certain biological factors. In other words, the exercises we do have to accommodate with our health and age (e.g metabolism, stamina, etc.).



Of course, many exceptions exist but if you consider yourself to be one, then you're just being delusional. This world is made on generalisation, and this is by far one of the more useful generalisations.

Bless you, Julian. Truly. Bless, you. :pirate:

[graystripe79]

So he could have been a bit less harsh, but then again, he didn't originally come out fists flying. He made an article first, and then he got angry at the many teens not really focusing on the issue at hand. They took offense first and thought later, even if it is a bit cliche.

I lke this. I mean, I was hurt by his use of the word suck but I do understand the message he is trying to send. (please, I dont want any of you to think that I'm arrogant enough to say that my writng is good enough not to fall into a suck category.) I just feel like it was naive to just group all teens into the category of suck. I mean, an 18 year old and a 13 year old are in very very different spots in their lives, there for I dont think it is unreasonable to say that it was wrong to say ALL teen writing sucks.

[Halle]

It's hard to believe all teenage writers suck when something a 15-year-old girl wrote managed to bring an adult male published author to her door asking how she does it.

[Julian]

It's hard to believe all teenage writers suck when something a 15-year-old girl wrote managed to bring an adult male published author to her door asking how she does it.

With this, I can fïnally assess that no one truthfully read the whole article. Yay, for teenage maturity :D

[Halle]

With this, I can fïnally assess that no one truthfully read the whole article. Yay, for teenage maturity :D

I have read this article ten times before, from point one to point ten. So stop making assumptions or I will have to say 'Yay' for 'people-who-think-other-people-haven't-read-something-because-their-opinion-is-different' maturity.

[Julian]

I have read this article ten times before, from point one to point ten. So stop making assumptions or I will have to say 'Yay' for 'people-who-think-other-people-haven't-read-something-because-their-opinion-is-different' maturity.

No, he did state the exceptions, and he even responded to those statements in the comments section. So, your post is not a counter-argument based on reading the article because you are just repeating a statement already acknowledged in it. This just becomes unnecessary.

Also, this article is a gross realization. Like many things in life. Getting so flared up because of such triviality is so... useless. Like protesting against something just for the fun of it.

Some geniuses exist out there... we darn get it.

[Halle]

Scalzi said himself in one of the comments he only responded to 'stupid' and 'obnoxious' comments, which is exactly what he did.
He hasn't actually responded to any good and logical comments about how to improve. I know I am repeating a statement, statements almost always have to be repeated to get heard, i.e. women's rights, gay rights, children's right et cetera. Although yes, perhaps I wanted to make exception real to me.

What I write was nothing to do with no one getting the picture there are geniuses, but getting the picture that some 'geniuses' are sensitive and low on confidence, saying such things are not emotionally right, I myself have stopped writing because many people have said 'you are a teenager, therefore your characters and plots have no water to them, you have no experience with real trauma that you can add to make anything you write good'.
Coincidentally, Scalzi said either in the comments or within one of the points (I do not have the blog up right now) that teenagers do not have experience, which I can turn my back on, I've certainly had enough experience to write about how a grown man deals with his childhood of being raped, beaten, starved and emotionally twisted and how it affects him.

My whole idea is that while he says there are exceptions in teenage writing, no one actually believes that. I do not post my own writing here, because I know every flaw with it and do not need any advice on spelling, grammar and punctuation that I haven't already spotted myself. Of course I am not an exception, I am me, therefore I lack exception.
Exceptions, like the author of Eragon, aren't actually good writers, they just write a lot with extensive words.

[Dabs]

I do not post my own writing here, because I know every flaw with it and do not need any advice on spelling, grammar and punctuation that I haven't already spotted myself. Of course I am not an exception, I am me, therefore I lack exception.

That's a bit narcissistic, if you ask me. You can never know every flaw with something. I'm pretty good at self-editing, too, but it's always helpful to get advice from others. You might be surprised by what they bring up.

Exceptions, like the author of Eragon, aren't actually good writers, they just write a lot with extensive words. [/QUOTE]

Eragon suffers from so many more problems than the author's word choices. lol

[Halle]

I don't think it is narcissistic more so than knowing where your faults lie, which I do. Narcissism is claiming to be the best, self-admiration. I'm a paranoid depressive, I am far from self-admiring.

For example I can honestly say paragraphing and the difference between effect and affect are beyond me, so I know when I write, I know what is most likely to be wrong. I also know I am likely to type 'an' instead of 'and' and vise versa, as well as with 'that', 'this' and 'then', 'th' 'eh' and 'te' instead of 'the' and so on.
I also know my use of commas is not thoroughly refined, so I will need to improve my knowledge of such simple punctuation.

I know my weaknesses, and so know my every fault. I examine everything I do with extreme precision, I spend more time picking out faults and may-be faults more than actually writing. My only strengths lie in word choice, character development, place and pace, my plots fall idly, I cannot grip them, they slip away with new ideas.

I know what is wrong with everything I've done in the sense I know what is most likely to be wrong, so I find something I'm not sure on and look it up, get advice from other people and edit it. My weaknesses are plots, direction, punctuation, spelling (key slipping), consistency, grammar, paragraphing and general confidence. I think it's less narcissistic to know what is wrong with your work and admit it rather than let everybody else do the work for you.

[Dabs]

I don't think it is narcissistic more so than knowing where your faults lie, which I do. Narcissism is claiming to be the best, self-admiration. I'm a paranoid depressive, I am far from self-admiring.

For example I can honestly say paragraphing and the difference between effect and affect are beyond me, so I know when I write, I know what is most likely to be wrong. I also know I am likely to type 'an' instead of 'and' and vise versa, as well as with 'that', 'this' and 'then', 'th' 'eh' and 'te' instead of 'the' and so on.
I also know my use of commas is not thoroughly refined, so I will need to improve my knowledge of such simple punctuation.

I know my weaknesses, and so know my every fault. I examine everything I do with extreme precision, I spend more time picking out faults and may-be faults more than actually writing. My only strengths lie in word choice, character development, place and pace, my plots fall idly, I cannot grip them, they slip away with new ideas.

I know what is wrong with everything I've done in the sense I know what is most likely to be wrong, so I find something I'm not sure on and look it up, get advice from other people and edit it. My weaknesses are plots, direction, punctuation, spelling (key slipping), consistency, grammar, paragraphing and general confidence. I think it's less narcissistic to know what is wrong with your work and admit it rather than let everybody else do the work for you.

There's a difference between knowing your weaknesses and knowing your every fault. Putting your work out there to be critiqued doesn't mean that you're letting other people do the work for you. It means that you recognize the impossibility of knowing every single fault in your writing.

I know where several of my weaknesses lie, but sometimes I find that even aspects that I considered strong aren't actually up to par.

[FayGee]

Ok, this is going off topic. Soon enough, a mod will write, "Please don't spam up this thread," etc. :laugh:
/spam (okay I'm being a hypocrite)

[Jack]

Ok, this is going off topic. Soon enough, a mod will write, "Please don't spam up this thread," etc. :laugh:
/spam (okay I'm being a hypocrite)

I actually thought it was a pretty well structured debate. Your post is the first post that gets a warning for spamming up the thread. :sarcasm:

[Carraka]

Gonna side with Dabs on this one, Halle, although it's your choice ultimately whether you put up your work for us to critique. To me, correcting grammar, spelling, etc. is the low-end of what I do when I try to critique. And if you find your characterization and word choice to be strong, but your general confidence weak, it might boost your confidence to receive praise you deserve.

Ehh, your choice. I think it's a leap to jump from "I know my every weakness" to "I know my every fault" and perhaps it's a leap to arrive at "I know my every weakness" in the first place, but this is getting personal, so I'll stop.

But critiquing is not letting someone else do the work for you. By any stretch. Perhaps if a critique meant completely rewriting the author's work into a final draft, then I would agree with you, but to me, a critique is someone's opinion of what you've done right and where they suggest improvements, because if you're going to write for an audience, eventually you need an audience and their feedback. And a critique is practice for receiving criticism on your work. They tell me eventually it hurts less, but it never goes away.

Baaack to Scalzi. He probably could've softened his tone a little, but I think he wanted to be offensive. Maybe he was trying to be sensationalist. But if his goal was to get us to sit up and pay attention, he certainly did that. I suppose I would've put across the same message differently. Or maybe I wouldn't have dared. I would just write some encouraging fluff.

[FayGee]

I actually thought it was a pretty well structured debate. Your post is the first post that gets a warning for spamming up the thread. :sarcasm:

I was talking about how it turned to the subject of Halle's 'not needing' crits. And I did say I was being a hypocrite.


:)500th post!:)

[Schweet-T]

My gf told me abou this thread the other day. Now, before I answer, I'm going to do the typical old person thing (I'm no longer a teenager XD) and give you a bit of background on me.

I'm a college student that is currently a sociology major, but was a psychology major before I switched. I've learned about the development of the mind, as well as social norms and blah blah blah, don't worry, I won't make this too boring for you guys.

Teenagers simply lack two things, formal training and experience. This doesn't make an inherenly "bad" writer, it simply means an inexperienced writer. I've read poems and stories from teenagers that are better than some veteran writers, but on the same note, I've read things written by teenagers that were so horrible that I thought an elementary student wrote it, and a young one at that, with no grasp of diction, plot, prose, or any other literary knowledge.

In the end, writing, like all art, is highly subjective. That being said, however, there's no denying that a young writer lacks the technical skill of someone who's been writing for a long time. They haven't developed enough of a vocabulary perhaps to have the concise language that an older writer may have, and thus, even though their works would otherwise be considered good, might be worded crudely.

There are few inherently "bad" writers, just as there are few inherently "good" writers. Most people will read a work and form opinions of the work, and then pass judgment. The writing of a young writer might be "bad" but it may have nothing to do with the fact that the person may be a teenager. They might just not be able to flesh out characters and make them believable. The same thing goes for older writers. Just because they have more experience doesn't make them better. It gives them a leg up, but it's not a sure thing.

[thekingsguard]

I can't speak for everyone, but at least with my work, I have to agree with him. ompared to my newer stuff, I'm almost ashamed of my teenage work. Life expirience and maturity add a lot to a writer's work.

[lalodragon]

Sorry to bump this.

Find "freedom to suck" on Youtube. It's a nerdfighters' video, or something. A guy with wild hair talking about Nanowrimo. He praises nanowrimo because it gives the writers freedom to suck without hating themselves or being hated for it. It expects and allows them to suck.
Well, that's what this article is doing. It's allowing us to admit that we suck and to keep writing, instead of giving up because we shouldn't suck. So, if you are actually good, producing a lot, and willing to revise, you can start worrying whether you suck. If you aren't, he says don't worry, just keep writing, and you're allowed to suck. I appreciate that, actually. :rolleyes:
Something Isis quoted:Most people who've taught poetry (or other arts) to school children will agree that critiquing plays no part in it. You just get them writing lots of poetry. It stems the flow to start telling them what's wrong with their work when they're just building up the nerve to write at all.
You might think this guy is telling us what's wrong. But I think he's telling us not to worry about what's wrong, to accept our suckishness and keep going, and later to worry about quality.
That's what I do. I write every day and the immense majority of it will never see light. It sucks. I know that as soon as I start writing it. I write it anyway. Any writing is good practice, and I'm allowed to suck, as long as I write something. Which is what Sc. says, isn't it?

[Peppermental]

Arthur Rimbaud had quit writing by the time he was twenty. If you think you're ever good enough in regards to art then you're finished. Age maybe relevant in regards to experience, but passion and work ethic are by far more critical. Hunter S Thompson used to type word for word books like the Great Gatsby and most of Hemmingway, as well as write his own stories. This was a daily thing, and he is arguably one of the best writers of the twentieth century. The best writers are the ones that work the hardest, whether they're teenagers like Rimbaud or elderly like Stephen King, who reads over 60 books a year and writes constantly.

[graystripe79]

Arthur Rimbaud had quit writing by the time he was twenty. If you think you're ever good enough in regards to art then you're finished. Age maybe relevant in regards to experience, but passion and work ethic are by far more critical. Hunter S Thompson used to type word for word books like the Great Gatsby and most of Hemmingway, as well as write his own stories. This was a daily thing, and he is arguably one of the best writers of the twentieth century. The best writers are the ones that work the hardest, whether they're teenagers like Rimbaud or elderly like Stephen King, who reads over 60 books a year and writes constantly.

Well said!! :)

[Queen Kanen]

Beep Boop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyhv80HDSj4&feature=plcp&context=C40764a8VDvjVQa1PpcFNzpdIdOR1_rb_QggneevvhElE_dnmPGhs=)

What Lalo said.

[Julian]

Arthur Rimbaud had quit writing by the time he was twenty. If you think you're ever good enough in regards to art then you're finished. Age maybe relevant in regards to experience, but passion and work ethic are by far more critical. Hunter S Thompson used to type word for word books like the Great Gatsby and most of Hemmingway, as well as write his own stories. This was a daily thing, and he is arguably one of the best writers of the twentieth century. The best writers are the ones that work the hardest, whether they're teenagers like Rimbaud or elderly like Stephen King, who reads over 60 books a year and writes constantly..

However, age can be an indicator to the level of skill in any profession. Take Rimbaud, for instance; it isn't only a question of having a literary passion: one cannot ignore the fact that the guy is talented. Also, one has to take into account the circumstances of the time. Rimbaud became famous for his writing in a poetic structure 'unheard' of at the time, and his bravado made him quite (in)famous.

Working hard consistently does make you better, but training involves time. I mean; if you do work passionately but learn slowly, then isn't it safe to judge that you'd be a lot better writer as an adult as compared to when you were as a kid?


And Kanen's link explains it all. Us talentless hacks can't be dared to feel 'awesome writers', however we are passionate.

[aeoleus]

I'm gonna give you the short and sweet answer: It varies. If you go on to a website like Fanfiction. net, and you will find twenty-something year olds how stink to high heavens with their writing. Then I will find that on story with 5k reviews, so detailed, perfect story plot, well rounded characters- and it's written by a fifteen year old.
I'll tell you, though: Experience is everything. If you look back on your writing from maybe a year ago, you are gonna whistle and think: This is awful! But in six months, you are gonna look back on what you are writing now and think, "This is the worst piece of crap ever!"

So, experience really counts, but it doesn't mean we can't have a few prodigies here or there.

[Peppermental]

I'm awesome. All your arguments are invalid.