The Case Against Reading Everything
thewalrus.ca
The Case Against Reading Everything
1–10 of 61 posts
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#2This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is.
"Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains.
You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy. It seems to be manufactured by people who find the act of reading some sort of chore. I do not. I find it the highest pleasure I have ever experienced.
Perhaps there's a difference between being naturally curious and being forced to read broadly. I dunno. I've never had to be forced. I like reading and writing the way many of us like programming. I'm truly sorry if the author does not. Writing's a hell of a shitty way to make a living; I can't imagine what it'd be like if you didn't at least enjoy the sport of it.
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#3This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones.
Perhaps an analogy to songwriting will make things more clear: how well received are the works of someone who writes rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs?
It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they tend mainly to listen to and be influenced by country music.
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#4The author appears to misunderstand the advice. “Read widely” doesn’t mean “ignore quality”, or “read things you hate”, or “the next book you read should be a different author than the last”. It also doesn’t mean “read everything”.
Meanwhile this author loves advice about semicolons and em-dashes? Okay.
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#5This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones. Perhaps an analogy to songwriting will make things more clear: how well received are the works of someone who writes rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs? It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they t…
I think maybe the only way to be a good artist though is to explore the things that resonate with you. If rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass speaks to your soul, and creating that music fulfills you, then who’s to say exploring those genres is a mistake? There are other measures of success than recognition.
Austin Kleon puts this especially well in “Steal Like An Artist.” He says that you can cut off some of your passions, and try to focus on one thing, but eventually you will “feel the pain of the phantom limb.”
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#6This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones. Perhaps an analogy to songwriting will make things more clear: how well received are the works of someone who writes rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs? It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they t…
While I don't disagree with the author on his points, I find them premised on faulty logic. His thesis assumes that depth and breadth are zero-sum pursuits. I suppose they are if time and energy are limiting factors, but to those who read and write for the love of the game, those limits are lifted.
When it comes time to settle down on a voice and hone your craft, sure, I would never recommend you switch up your style for the hell of it. But if you want to read widely, and if doing so refines your style, great. Go for it. It probably will.
Again, the way the author characterizes this 'problem' is jarringly foreign and antithetical to my own experience. Perhaps I lack the objectivity to see it the way the author does.
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#7This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones. Perhaps an analogy to songwriting will make things more clear: how well received are the works of someone who writes rap-funk-metal-folk-electro-bluegrass songs? It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they t…
I can't see why a bluegrass songwriter wouldn't benefit from learning more about rap, funk, metal; bringing a stronger context to their understanding of their own genre (which is sometimes an arbitrary delineation) and perhaps some techniques.
> It's not that a successful country music songwriter can't listen to and enjoy hip-hop but you'll find they tend mainly to listen to and be influenced by country music.
Without any examples for or to the contrary, I'm not convinced this is true.
> The point of the article was in encouraging writers to hone in on an individual voice as opposed to being influenced by thousands of competing tones.
I think both extremes are harmful. But my experience comes from dabbling in Jazz music of all sorts; 'Jazz fusion' is such a broad moniker that it extends from funk to rock to swing to rap.
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#8This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
>You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy.
It's a tradeoff because of the finite time for reading.
One can reread Shakespeare's 4 tragedies (Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth) again for the 10th time (about 8 hours of reading) -- or -- read E.L. James "50 Shades of Grey" for the 1st time (also about ~8 hours of reading).
Some writers may suggest that you read E.L. James because that way, you can mark the checkbox of "read some BDSM material" and hence satisfy the "read more widely" advice. (The "widely" as the blog author interprets it). The blog and his quote of Seamus Heaney disagrees with that and advises to read what one enjoys. It's also ok if one is re-reading an old favorite again instead of unfamiliar writing that's often low quality.
And yes, choosing what to read is a zero-sum game. Mathematically, how could it not be?
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#9This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
> You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy.
Given that we're in a forum where computer science and engineering topics are often discussed, I find it odd that anyone would suggest this.
You have a limited resource (time). Whenever you have a limited resource, there are tradeoffs in how you spend it. Unless exhaustive search is feasible, there is indeed a tradeoff between depth and breadth.
Re: The Case Against Reading Everything
#10This article is horseshit. I'm a professional writer, and I'll trust Oates and King over whoever this guy is. "Read widely" isn't some religious dictum. It's more of a religious calling. (Of sorts.) If you love to read, and you love to write, you naturally read all fucking day. Your thirst is unquenchable. Your tastes are varied. So you drink from many different fountains. You also realize there is no trade off betwe…
>You also realize there is no trade off between depth and breadth. It's a false dichotomy. It's a tradeoff because of the finite time for reading. One can reread Shakespeare's 4 tragedies (Hamlet, King Lear, Othello, Macbeth) again for the 10th time (about 8 hours of reading) -- or -- read E.L. James "50 Shades of Grey" for the 1st time (also about ~8 hours of reading). Some writers may suggest that you read E.L. Jam…
>"read some BDSM material"
Emphasis on quotes. Most of that novel is an abusive relationship, from what I hear.