For Those That Have Eyes But Read Not

Blog Owner & Author: Lainy

Days before Windy left Lainy’s Musings, he wrote his Apologia to explain why he believes, reading does not improve writing. He did not publish it here at Lainy’s Musings as an Article.

Uncharacteristic of the Windy that I know, he did not for fear that someone who was simultaneously raging a retaliatory and vindictive campaign at Blogs and Facebook and personal telephone calls, might suffer a mental concussion for not being able withstand Windy’s challenge.

I read Windy’s Apologia several times. Again, I find in it the sheer brilliance of his mind.

Here it is for you as an Article at Lainy’s Musings…

1. Preamble

Why is it that when something that is being questioned, it is turned into a personal issue? For these, it is pushed to a point where it distinctly smacks of personal pride rather than pursuit of better understanding.

Such was then the issue for discussion. “Does Reading Improve Writing?”

Note that it begins with the word “Does” and it ends with the question mark. It is not a statement. There is no reason to get inflamed through the discussion and to assert that any answer that differs is tantamount as having made a personal attack on their ability to write.

A person who does not have the ability to argue in a logical manner and accuses that there is a personal attack, that person should never be involved in any discussion. Is there a need to be hyper self-conscious in a discussion?

Remember, pride goes before a fall.

2. The Premise

Over several discussions, it is obvious that there are those who believe that reading improves writing. That is good for them. If it works for them I have no problem with that. The American cliche applies: It’s different strokes for different folks.

My problem in not subscribing to that belief is because:

· Their claim is based on personal experience.
· Their belief is also based on hearsay , readers comments and from non-authoritative sources.
· They cut and paste whatever they find on the world wide web.
· They utter READING IMPROVES WRITING but have never explained how it is achieved.

3. Reading needs first to be defined for this discussion.

In order not to allow words and its meanings to be distorted and add more confusion in the ensuing discussion,

· Reading for purpose of learning is NOT what is related in this topic.
· Reading in this topic means general reading, reading for one’s leisure, reading as a hobby.

4. To me, reading does NOT improve writing.

Let me now begin with my apologia why reading does not improve writing. All that I can hope for is that the reader will keep an open mind for as long as it takes to finish reading my defence and not draw a conclusion before having finished reading.

If the reader can’t handle that. PLEASE DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER.

As far as history dates back about mankind’s existence, prehistoric man did not have books to read and yet they expressed and communicated and in deed “wrote”. Whatever prehistoric man used during his time, I shall broadly term it as being their equivalent of what we call a book. What kind of book did prehistoric man have?

Prehistoric man expressed by sound, hand sign language and etched rudimentary drawings inside their cave abodes or on stones. In particular for drawings, it was images for what they wanted to relate. That mode did not have a set of rules as we call grammar. It can be assumed that whatever was prehistoric man’s grammar; it was good enough for the other person to understand, be it rightly or wrongly.

Sounds, crude hand drawn images and observation was the norm for prehistoric man’s “written” expression. There was no reading. Reading (and not reading for the purpose of learning) as it is here for debate was an unknown skill to them.

Before writing material was invented, it was the heyday for bards and storytellers. These had no books from which to learn. They conjured stories or related events with a moral lesson for their audience or spoke of legends and stuff – but it was their own expression. It was a verbal expression.

Not until the invention of papyrus or the use of animal dried skins, was there a medium to enable man to write or to draw what he needed to express. Again, this form of “book” was not reading material from which man could attain improvement in order to write.

Moving into the more advanced stage of mankind’s history, there came an explosion of written material. At the beginning, it was a luxury for royalty, the rich upper class and at one period, a benefit reserved only for monasteries. What was written was done more for reason of retention of the Sciences and Religion; primarily to serve as a legacy for the knowledge of truth and inventions.

Reflect that for eons before books and reading came into existence, mankind was able to express in “writing” regardless of how comparatively primitive their methods were. Technically, there were no books. Hence, no reading. Definitely not in the manner when we compare it to rules of grammar and a lexicon of words that we now have. It did not prevent them from writing. Fact is, writing precedes a book.

5. What’s the beef?

Claim 1: We improve our knowledge by reading. Reading for the purpose of learning. This relationship is logical. I should make a clear distinction here that reading to learn how to write is NOT writing. One may READ and learn HOW to write as explained in text but it is NOT to be confused to mean reading improves ACTUAL writing.

Incidentally, reading is not the only method that improves knowledge.
Reading is one of several methods.

Claim 2: Can it also be said that we improve our writing by reading?

How do we establish a relationship between these two?

Regardless of what is being read, may I ask how it is achieved?
Throughout my entire education, none of my teachers has ever taught that it is the way to improve writing.

After having read a book, any kind of book -
How does one transfer what has been read to our own writing?
Do we imitate the author’s style whether or not it fits what we are about to write? If that is possible, how is it done?

By using his vocabulary will the word that one imitates, lend the same literary effect and connote the same meaning for what one writes?
I would like those who believe that reading improves writing, explain to me how it is done.

I am not the kind that kow-tows by repeated and unproven cries that reading improves writing.

These advocates need to explain their methodology and I shall see if it makes sense at all to be convinced that reading does improve writing.

Claim 3: I’ve seen this statement elsewhere that “reading is the source for inspiration and ideas to write”.

I reject there being any truth in that statement. To subscribe to that belief is tantamount to an admission to intellectual theft. It also means that the writer is in a mental comatose.

For those of us who read and I mean consistently read, how many times did it ever occur that after reading a novel, it set you on fire to write?

Yes, it is possible that reading can inspire but to claim that reading is a veritable source to improve writing is farfetched.

Claim 4: I have also come across this statement that “reading is not actual writing but it’s the antecedent for improving your writing. How else would you know that you write as good as what you’re reading about? Or if you compare palely? Or you are better than what you’re reading?”

But of course how could reading be actual writing? I can’t think how these two could mean the same thing. Why was it even mentioned? That is a superfluous statement.

How can it ever be possible that reading precedes improving one’s writing? Do not confuse reading with reading to learn. Let’s stay on course and clearly understand the dichotomy of those two words – reading and writing.

We learn to write as it is also true that we learn to read. We don’t read to improve our writing. We read to improve our learning, our knowledge, as a personal liking.

Think about it in this way. If it is true that reading improves writing, we’d be reading till the cows come home and hardly have the time to sit down and write. Then comes that nagging feeling that what has been written is still not good enough. So it’s back to some more reading, endless reading till we think we’ve made it. Just when does that realization happen when we begin to believe that our writing has arrived?

Improvement in writing is through continuous practice and how well we write is not gauged by comparing it with how other authors write. That is a ridiculous gauge. The writer would know how well his written material is through literature assay and critique, the response from readers and the rules of language compliance.

We write because we are motivated to express our thoughts. Would it be true that because we do not read sufficiently therefore we are unable to express what we think in writing? And would it be true that because we do not know what to write, we pick up a book, read the book, then ~tadaaa… problem solved. Now we have the inspiration and the ideas from someone’s book to start scribbling our thoughts?

Is that the role model of reading when it deals with writing? I shudder at the thought that reading is made to be the basis of how one improves writing.

My answer is, NO, to the above question. In the absence of reading we would still be able to express in the manner that we are accustomed with.

INTERMISSION

6. Advocates of reading DOES improve writing – here’s your test.

Take your pick. Choose 5 books of any genre and author of your preference.

Read the books till you think you have reached a point where what you have read is good enough for you to compose an essay.

Write an essay of 800 words. I’ll make it even easier for the advocate. You choose the topic and title for the essay.

Let us see after you are done, how much of the 5 books that you read helped you with the essay of 800 words.

Oh! of course write either way and you are at a loss -
· Unless you possess the memory power of two elephants to remember the writing style, the idea(s), the expression, the vocabulary of the author, and honestly that would be next to impossible.
· Or you plagiarize the ideas of the author and blatantly copy words from his books.

7. Uncreative writing

Today, good or bad, we are mentally programmed through an education methodology. I am not being cynical about it. Just that at the end of that process, granted that it shores up personal knowledge through reading, it does not produce the qualities of writing that is raised by the initial question – Does reading improve writing?

We are being processed like how it is at a factory production line, stereotyped by a rigid and uniform school education that stymies individuality. If you have read Edward de Bono’s lateral thinking it would explain what I am pointing to.

I recall a period during my post high school when no matter how I tried, I could never score grades greater than 60 percent for subjects that was taught by a teacher from France.

Students who were comparatively poorer performers were scoring higher grades than I did.

Later on, I found out that these students memorized every single passage and answered the exam papers word for word as found in our textbook. This teacher was from a generation that believe in unilateral thinking as the best way to learn, to think and perhaps even to write. He would not allow free expression for examination answers.

It did not matter to him if the student clearly understood what was taught and how much the student understood with his own words for his answer.

When creativity is suppressed it equates to marginalization of expression and perhaps even worse; if you do not understand but you are able to repeat it like a parrot you’re declared as being an A student.

So much to the strangulation of creative minds and self-expression at the cost of being hung by reading books and forced to repeat like a “parrot”.

What is my purpose in having said all that?

Those who insists that reading improves writing, it is just like the rigid school education systems and my French teacher, they advocate an obstacle to the creative function and individual expression of the writer.

A writer writes what he thinks and not for reasons how it is done by some other author or by imitating another author.

8. Misguided

We are brainwashed into believing that the more we read the better we write.

If that were the truth, we’d all be competent writers considering the amount of reading that we achieve during our lifetime. Can we claim that we are competent writers today because it was achieved through reading?

As I have explained it else where, let us not confuse what is meant by “reading for purpose of learning” and “reading”.

Writing like any pursuit of excellence can be a daunting task. Unlike the primitive men we now have to contend with learning the rules of how writing is acceptable. Even the manner of expression is guided by the norms of grammar, syntax and all the various forms of linguistic expression.

Yet again, having learned all that through reading does not guarantee one’s ability to express with excellence in the written form.

Hyperbolically, a student could recite the entire book of grammar and yet struggle to express what he needs to write.

Here we are today, far more superior in knowledge but lacking the skill to convert our thoughts in a cohesive and interesting manner for others to read.

We know of writers then and now. Some dreadfully boring in the way they write while others evoke a desire in the reader to want to read more. Some of these writers never had the opportunity to read as much as is available today but their writings are esteemed as undisputed reference or are considered as a must read item.

9. The talent in writing.

One writer whose acumen particularly strikes me is Art Buchwald, the columnist. Besides being very articulate with socio-political issues, he could present his thinking sometimes in a farcical manner, sometimes with wry humor, sometimes with satire, sometimes with arresting bluntness and sometimes a good mix of two or more of it in the same writing.

We also know of writers who were blind. Some of them became blind later in their life. These blind writers wrote their best during their blind period. You may ponder why so without their ability to read more?

Bereft of the physical ability to read, they wrote from the deep recesses of their human mind and soul. They were able to express with greater profundity because they could only “read” as it were with their mind’s eye and were able to express more purely without distraction. This is something that a writer blessed with full sight often struggles to attain.

10. The question begs: Does Reading Improve Writing?

Let us not confuse it with Does Reading to learn to Improve Writing? There is a tendency not to see the empirical nuance. In failing to distinguish the difference, it is the cause for most answers to revolve in meaningless circles..

Please re-read, “What’s the beef?” if at this point, you are still unsure about why I say that the question begs.

Obviously, one has to learn to write. That is a basic need. However, learning how to write does not assure that one is able to write well. To write well is perfected through practice and the improvement of one’s thinking process and expression.

Knowledge reading adds knowledge. Whether the knowledge gained is capable of being transferred to what one writes depends on what is being read and what is being written.

We express in writing and we improve the finesse of our expression in writing through practice. Again, it is not through reading but by learning and expanding our knowledge on the techniques and exercising and perfecting and IMPROVING our writing skills THROUGH PRACTICE.

And it is in the manner that I am writing now. I did not peruse through relevant reading material to write this piece. I think logically and I express as best as I possibly can. For all I know, it may be a shabbily written piece, boring and unenlightening material to read.

It only proves one thing more to me. I need to (without the aid of reading more books) improve the manner of how I express my thoughts in writing – to make it simple to read, interesting to read, and hope that the readers will regard it as worth the time they spent reading.

To believe that I need to increase my reading to improve my writing does not have credence Firstly, I will not be able to ape the expression of another author or how that author’s mind thinks or how that author expresses with his choice of words and his fluidity in construction. To rob the author of his written ideas is intellectual theft. It is plagiarizing his mental creativity.

It also why we have at times found ourselves in a situation where listening to a less read man is far more interesting than listening to a highly read man. In this example the highly read man although he is more knowledgeable, he may not be as captivating with his expression. But that serves as an analogy and does not relate directly to Does Reading Improve Writing?

I have taken the time to explain why I believe reading does not improve writing. It can be pooh-poohed as being erroneous. So be it. Anyone has his own justification.

11. Conclusion

Can my worthy advocates of reading DOES improve writing, reciprocate with equal time and effort to answer questions that I have raised here and in doing so, prove that my rationale is flawed?

p.s.

If you did a word count, this entire passage inclusive adds to 3084 words. A better writer may have done it in half. hahaha.

Prior to writing this, I did NOT READ A BOOK OR HAVING READ ANYTHING RELEVANT ABOUT THIS TOPIC FROM BOOKS AND ELSEWHERE AND NEITHER WAS I FIRED UP AFTER READING A BOOK NOR INSPIRED AFTER HAVING READ A BOOK. There was never the need for it.

As a fine writer once aptly said, “I Think (therefore) I Write”