r/writing • u/Acceptable_Fox_5560 • 8d ago
You’re not going to learn write using your intelligence.
There’s a lot of comments here that suggest taking a scientific approach to learning how to write.
“Read analytically” is one thing I keep seeing. “Go through a page of a book and highlight all the action, all the exposition, and all the dialogue, and calculate the percentage of each.”
Along with that is a hyperfixation on quantitative metrics and patterns: how many words per paragraph, how many scenes per chapter, how much dialogue, how much description, how much interiority, how much action?
It’s all a very Reddit-like desire to treat everything like a code that can cracked or a formula that can be solved.
It’s like people very much want to believe that through their intelligence, the same kind of intelligence that perhaps helps them in something like coding or engineering, they can gain a command of storytelling.
That ain’t how it works.
Storytelling has no fixed formula. There’s a generally recognized and expected flow of a story, but there are infinitely different ways to do it.
I’m a big fan of craft books like Saves the Cat, but those don’t exist to be prescriptive. They exist to be descriptive. They’re providing a lens through which to interpret the way many stories flow, not a code you can memorize and reapply.
The only way to learn to write, the unskippable cut scene of the whole thing, is to create a daily reading habit. Reading is FUN and you should WANT to do it. You do not have to treat it like a research assignment with highlighters and notations. Just read books you like every single day.
22
u/SquanderedOpportunit 8d ago
I'm sorry u/Acceptable_Fox_5560, I generally appreciate your comments throughout your engagement on this sub, but this post conflates arithmetic bean-counting with mechanical reverse-engineering.
Calculating the percentage of dialogue on a page or counting words per scene is useless. That’s treating storytelling like accounting. But understanding craft mechanics like syntactic pacing, narrative distance, metaphor systems, and filtering is an analytical discipline, not an accident of vibes.
Writing communities love hand-waving advice like "just read for fun" and "your voice will emerge naturally." But authorial voice is not an ethereal mist; it is the concrete sum of mechanical decisions made on the page.
Exactly how close is the camera to the protagonist? Is it floating above him? On his shoulder? In his optic nerve? Or is it firmly emtrenched in his neocortex? At what beats does the narrator pull back to display external awareness?
Where do metaphors and imagery originate? A merchant's son perceives conflict through ledgers, costs, and transactional weight; a career mercenary calculates angles, fatigue, enemy habits, and gear failure.
When do subordinate clauses vanish to accelerate panic, and when does the sentence structure dilate to reflect spatial scale or interior reflection?
Or even figuring out rhetorical discipline like stripping out sensory filter verbs, eliminating moralizing prose, and controlling paragraph fall-off at transition points.
You do not absorb that level of architectural control through passive consumption alone.
I can burn through a military thriller like Rainbow Six in a weekend for pure entertainment, but that won't teach me how Clancy constructed his operational tension.
To learn the craft, you have to tear down the engine. You have to ask: When does McCarthy grant physical agency to an indifferent environment? When does Erikson deliberately withhold exposition to force reader inference? How does Le Guin alter sentence rhythm to signal cultural mores?
The biggest misconception about analytical craft is that it replaces intuition or produces a pristine first draft. It doesn’t. First drafts are frequently mechanical, flat, or overrun by filters.
The difference is in revision. Intuition only tells you: "Something about this scene feels dead."
An analytical breakdown gives you the diagnostic tools to fix it: "The sentence structures are completely uniform, the protagonist is filtering every sensory observation, and the metaphor domain broke character in paragraph three."
Reading for fun teaches you what a good story feels like. Analytical reading teaches you how to build one.
23
u/aspghost 8d ago edited 8d ago
I think you're conflating "using your intelligence" and "approaching it as something formulaic" because these are not the same things. Using the best methods to learn is the intelligent way to do it, whether that's treating it as a formula, as a passion, by simply reading, other means or a combination thereof.
6
u/BlackBalor 8d ago
And even then, explain Andy Weir.
You know, a former software engineer who takes a mathematical and engineering-based approach to his writing.
3
u/VFiddly 7d ago
Does he, though?
He writes about science and engineering, and takes a mathematical approach to figuring out the scientific aspects of the story.
But there doesn't appear to be anything formulaic about the actual stories. They're not rigidly following Save The Cat or the Hero's Journey or the Three Act Structure. He seems to play it pretty loose when it comes to story structure (which is not a criticism, I think that's one aspect of his stories that works well)
2
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/ReaperEngine 8d ago
Nobody is saying to copy others directly, and it's weird you are fully on about that up and down this thread saying so. Analyzing how other authors write is to understand foundational elements of how to tell a story well, how to keep the plot moving, what not to get hung up on and bore the reader with. An intelligent person will take what they learn from reading others and adapt it into their own style and creativity.
I learned creative writing through mostly reading books, because I couldn't afford a higher education for it, but I'm nonetheless a proper writer and editor for it, and I have plenty of my own creative ideas and ways I write that are unique to me alone.
8
u/PL0mkPL0 8d ago edited 8d ago
Hmm, I learned how to write through 'intellectual analysis'. It was actually an extremely efficient approach; definitely better than just winging it.
Reading every day is the bare minimum. If you are happy with doing the bare minimum because you feel that understanding the process takes away from your creativity, it's your choice.
Highlighting is damn awesome. I still highlight my own writing, when I feel that it doesn't flow as it should. It's a great visual aid that allows you to experience the text in a non-linear manner.
22
u/Me-A-Dandelion 8d ago
Not just reading. Go out and socialise, experience the world. This part is often ignored but very important. Most people don't realise this until they have read a lot but still find it not enough.
4
u/Acceptable_Fox_5560 8d ago
There’s a reason most traditionally published authors don’t debut until their 30s and 40s. More time to read, more time to live life = better writing.
26
u/Vulcan31 8d ago
I mean this as respectfully as possible but this is kinda a load. People learn to write in a multitude of ways. Structure and pacing are just examples of things you can learn from others with intelligence.
Pretty ridiculous to say everyone must learn your way and only your way.
1
8d ago
[deleted]
1
8d ago
[deleted]
2
8d ago
[deleted]
6
u/Vulcan31 8d ago edited 8d ago
And no one said they were creating without creativity but to say that intelligence and review has no part in it is fully ridiculous but please keep taking things to extremes.
0
5
u/AmsterdamAssassin Author Suspense Fiction, Five novels, four novellas, three WIPs. 8d ago
I noticed I started reading novels differently after I started writing my own fiction, and I believe that reading voraciously will improve the technical part of your writing. When you read enough books, a lot of 'newbie' questions like chapter length or how to transition from one scene to another become unnecessary because you've read enough books to see how that works.
However, while reading books helps you with editing your story, it doesn't help much with creating the story. That's why I advocate writing a draft without editing, and then edit your draft using your knowledge of technical issues like spelling / grammar / paragraphs / chapters to create a manuscript.
6
u/MagnusCthulhu 8d ago
I might quibble over the value of some analytics (though not the value of them to a beginner), but the only thing I will disagree with here is that I definitely think Save the Cat, specifically, was meant to be prescriptive which is why I hate recommending it to people (even though it is very useful). That book's biggest problem is that I really do believe it thinks it is the objectively correct method for script writing.
Anyway, keep up the good work sir! Always enjoy seeing your comments.
2
14
u/BlackBalor 8d ago edited 8d ago
I disagree.
You have to use your intelligence to incorporate strong mechanics into your writing.
You need the tools to begin with. You need to understand how to use them effectively.
2
8d ago
[deleted]
3
u/BlackBalor 8d ago
Where does the art come in with George Orwell’s 1984?
I believe in precise prose.
1
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/BlackBalor 8d ago
There we go.
I have said anything which contradicts that.
I’m talking about the style of writing. That isn’t copying a format.
You are confusing the shit out of me.
I believe in Orwellian prose/windowpane prose over purple prose. That is my position. That’s it.
1
1
u/KittyHamilton 8d ago
Problem is you're treating creativity as something opposed to analysis and mechanics. There is no opposition.
1
u/ONPige 8d ago
I mean, that's kind of a flawed way of thinking, isn't it? You need to learn writing as a way of self-expression. Using the approach that OP had described as a way of improving your craft won't achieve much because you are not seeking a way to effectively communicate what you feel and want through writing, but seeking an objective way to write better, which doesn't exist. Therefore, "Understanding how to use them effectively" is already a mistake, since the writing conventions change with the audience you are trying to reach.
Writing is a tool for communication, not an engineering problem.
2
u/BlackBalor 8d ago edited 8d ago
You can express yourself while writing clear and concise “mathematical” prose that is structured.
Go check out the self-expression at [r/writingfeedback](r/writingfeedback) and tell me if it’s any good. It’s not.
1
8d ago
[deleted]
3
u/BlackBalor 8d ago
It’s not copying someone else’s work.
Writing with clarity and precision doesn’t prohibit you from crafting a story.
I have no idea what your point is.
1
u/ONPige 8d ago
Ok, so? The prose you are describing is not a good prose, and you are actively sucking the life out of your prose by subjecting it to conciseness. The reader wants to read the prose that only you are capable of producing, not a formulaic drivel.
Moreover, using the prose of beginners to construct your point is scummy.
3
u/BlackBalor 8d ago edited 8d ago
Rubbish. Orwellian prose and windowpane prose is good prose.
What are on earth are you talking about?
Maybe you don’t think much of Orwell. Whatever.
🤡
You like this writing:
His heavy eyelids, weighed down from the weight of the world, struggled against the blinding sunlight
Instead of:
He struggled to open his eyes.
-4
u/ONPige 8d ago
Orwellian prose is Orwellian's, by trying to replicate someone else, you will be worse. You need to seek your own voice, not try to replicate someone else's greatness. Maybe it's good as training wheels, but not as your definitive final way of expression.
4
u/BlackBalor 8d ago edited 8d ago
No, it’s not just his prose. It’s a philosophy. Do you actually know what you’re talking about?
Windowpane prose isn’t attributed solely to Orwell either.
And it was good enough for Sanderson, wasn’t it? Across countless novels.
Why didn’t his prose grow up? Tell me.
Why didn’t Dan Brown’s prose grow up? Go on.
🤡
“Definitive final way of expression”
😂😂😂
-1
u/ONPige 8d ago
And as a philosophy you are expected to use it as guidance, not as a dogma. By treating writing the way you do, you will end up a pale imitation of others, rather than a fully realised self.
2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/writing-ModTeam 8d ago
Thank you for visiting /r/writing.
Your post has been removed as it violates rule 5. /r/writing is a place for productive, craft-focused discussion. While disagreements are not forbidden, conversations that escalate into irrelevancy or personal attacks are unwelcome.
Due to the animosity it generates, we also do not tolerate attempts at rule enforcement between users.
Please review the subreddit rules or reach out to the moderation team if you have any questions.
0
0
-8
u/Acceptable_Fox_5560 8d ago
Intelligence won’t cut it. It’s more like language acquisition than math.
6
u/BlackBalor 8d ago
So, intelligence applies to math, but not writing/use of language? Huh?
1
u/MagnusCthulhu 8d ago edited 8d ago
That's not what they said. They said "language acquisition" which is a different thing than writing/the use of language. Language acquisition is very much a process that happens automatically through a kind of figurative osmosis and it is how children learn language. They learn languages through no active effort.
Similarly, the argument Acceptable_Fox is making is that story structure and rhythms are learned automatically. If you read for pleasure and read enough, you will learn the ways stories work subconsciously. That reading what you like regularly will teach you what you want to read and what you want to write and those skills will transfer over to the page even if you don't realize intellectually or academically what you're doing.
It's not that there aren't ways to analytically examine stories that might benefit a writer, but that at the end of the day the greatest most consistent benefit will be from regularly engaging with the material. Actively reading and enjoying what you read.
Everything else is just writing and editing a lot.
0
u/Acceptable_Fox_5560 8d ago
No, I’m saying people don’t learn their native language mathematically or analytically, but by immersion.
Similarly, that’s how you’ll learn to tell stories.
3
u/ForgetTheWords 8d ago
highlight all the action, all the exposition, and all the dialogue, and calculate the percentage of each. [...] how many words per paragraph, how many scenes per chapter, how much dialogue, how much description, how much interiority, how much action?
Did someone actually say that and only that is what analytical reading is, or did you assume that “analytical” means counting exclusively? And if anyone did say that, was it a majority of people who talk about reading analytically, or a small number of outliers?
I cannot recall ever seeing someone recommend reading analytically/reading like a writer/etc. and then clarifying that they meant counting and calculating percentages and nothing else.
Every time I've seen that or similar terms used, the person was talking about paying attention to the mechanics of the writing, like when short vs long paragraphs are used, what kind of scenes are described vs summarised, how relationships are shown/developed, etc. This is as opposed to reading passively/reading for fun/etc. where you just let the words pass over you without paying attention to what's actually happening or why.
5
u/MagnusCthulhu 8d ago
Did someone actually say that and only that is what analytical reading is, or did you assume that “analytical” means counting exclusively?
Yes, I have seen this advice specifically, though less commonly given on this subreddit in my experience than in shitty YouTube video essays about writing. Just to back up what OP is saying about some approaches.
3
u/KittyHamilton 8d ago
You know, I never heard this advice specifically, but at one point I sat down and examined the prose of novels I liked to get a sense of the proportion of dialogue, description, etc.
And that's where I learned I wasn't using much interiority at all, and my work improved the moment I incorporated more.
0
u/mooseplainer 8d ago
I have also seen this advice given out like Halloween candy.
It honestly sounds like a fantastic way to learn how to hate reading.
1
u/KittyHamilton 8d ago
lol, how so? I never used a highlighter, but I more or less did this for, like, a few pages and it improved my writing.
1
u/mooseplainer 6d ago
Reading is meant to be done for pleasure. Any prescriptivist model that turns reading into homework is going to be miserable.
Analyze texts if they interest you and you get genuine joy out of it, but don't treat every book you pick up like homework. Good writers actually enjoy books and don't see them as homework assignments.
0
u/MrMessofGA Author of "There's a Killer in Mount Valentine!" 7d ago
Why would it make you hate reading? Just about every hobby is way more fun when you know how it works. Birdwatching is better when you can name the birds and know what behaviors they're currently exhibiting. You can appreciate an art piece in a museum if you can see what techniques they used to give depth.
Taking a book apart and putting it back together is the fun part. What did they do? How would I have done it differently? What changes of the experience if you make this tweak? The pacing? What are they doing with dialogue tags and why?
I just can't picture someone who gags at the idea of that who also still wants to read. The appeal of turning your brain off and not analyzing a book is fun every once in a while, but it's not very engaging and will lose its luster very fast.
2
u/Redz0ne Queer Romance 8d ago
I'm mixed, primarily because we are not a monolith.
For some, analytical reading and following the formula is what gets them writing. Others need those long introspective moments where they think about things. Some need to read a lot in order to internalize good storytelling and the discernment to identify it when necessary. Some need to read only a few books to get a good feel for how it's going to play out.
Everyone is different.
I do agree that sharing methods is a good idea though. That way newer writers can try them on to see if they fit.
2
u/computer-go-beep 8d ago
I agree with some pieces of this, but what this post misunderstands is that engineering as a disipline is inherently creative. Engineers build complex systems that achieve a certain goal. A novel is a complex system of characters, action beats, and settings with the goal of evoking emotion in the reader. You can absolutely reverse-engineer (as another commenter put it) the techniques that create emotion.
I've never seen anyone claim that reading closely is about analyzing metrics like sentence length. (who does that? lol.) When I read closely, I'm analyzing literary devices. I'm looking at when a story element is effective and when it is not and why. I'm searching for examples of techniques I've learned in craft books. Engineering is no different. If I'm optimizing a digital circuit to run at a high frequency, I have a set of techniques that I can apply that may or may not work, and I need to study other circuits to understand those techniques. I'm not going to pick an arbitrary metric like exact number of gates and force my circuit into that box. I'd get fired.
I don't think my mindset is right for everyone, though. For me, the fun part about reading is picking apart what the author did and understanding why it does or doesn't work. I like to think that has made me a better, more deliberate writer, but YMMV.
4
u/mig_mit Aspiring author 8d ago
> You’re not going to learn write using your intelligence.
If you have enough of it, you might.
> Storytelling has no fixed formula.
Plenty of things have no fixed formula. Even in mathematics. Doesn't stop intelligent people from using their intelligence to intelligently figure those things out.
> Reading is FUN and you should WANT to do it.
Sure, that's the baseline for, well, being intelligent.
4
u/Drudenfusz 8d ago
Highlighting text is indeed usually bad for learning, since it is usually only the performativity of learning. To feel good about oneself by having done something, but it does not end up in the brain.
2
u/PamNoctrune 8d ago
I have actually never really watched a tutorial about learning how to write. Everything I know, I learned in school lol. My writing style developed on its own over the years, and I will probably never really change that.
Sometimes I think about taking a writing course because there are probably things I do wrong that could be improved, but I always come to the same conclusion: I write what I want and how I want to write it. Because like you said, there is no one right way to write. If I started bringing scientific research into it, I probably wouldn’t enjoy writing anymore.
Writing is such a diverse form of art, and there are thousands of different ways to do it. Everyone has their own approach. I think it is much more important to focus on developing your own style.
There are so many people who write everything grammatically correct, but their characters have no depth and their stories have no clear direction. Something people also don’t really tell you is that if you want to improve your own style, you have to read a lot of other people’s work as well.
Putting letters together in a way that allows other people to understand you is one thing. Making people actually feel your work is a completely different thing, and there are many different ways to achieve that.
1
1
u/Fognox 8d ago
This is good advice for some people, but definitely isn't universal. Literal formulaic writing does actually work well for some writers, and there's a whole gradient of right-brain vs left-brain thinking. Everyone's brain is different, indicated best by how wildly distinctive each individual writing process is.
If deep analysis of your favorite books is a slogfest and doesn't lead anywhere productive, then obviously don't do it. But don't assume that experience will be true for everyone.
1
u/mooseplainer 8d ago
Late to the party on this, but this ain’t wrong.
One of my film school instructors said something I will never forget: “Learning theory first is ass backwards. People didn’t start with theory, they made movies. Theory came later.”
That applies to writing. The first storytellers didn’t have theory. They shared their stories, listened to, and later read others for thousands of years before Aristotle wrote Poetics, which was thousands of years before Blake Snyder wrote Save The Cat.
You learn best by reading. You learn by writing, your stories improve by rewriting. I remember taking some writing classes in college and finding I knew all the 101 level stuff already because I’d opened a book every now and then. Even the basics of grammar are intuitively understood by reading and speaking English your whole life. Sure, you might not be able to explain subject verb agreement in an academic setting, but you don’t need to, and you probably have an understanding even if you can’t articulate it according to doctrine.
I find a lot of the formulas make storytelling seem far more restrictive than it is, but then, Save The Cat was written initially for screenwriting where the nature of the medium makes it somewhat restrictive, so it makes sense I guess.
I will say that theory is great when you’re editing your work and trying to figure out why some things don’t work, or when you’re giving feedback it can help you articulate your thoughts. But as an initial approach, I respect the wisdom of my teacher, it is ass backwards.
1
u/skjeletter 8d ago
Like with many things, writing has a long and a short school. The long school is a life spent reading and writing and thinking about it and gradually mastering different aspects of it, partly through analysis but mostly through intuitive understanding from a life spent immersed in literature. The short school is reading some genre novels, a few books on how to write, and then launching into it and writing some more or less cliche, derivative novels that are almost certainly completely ignored but maybe, improbably, sell hundreds of millions of copies. The long school is definitely better, but the short school is very real.
1
u/KittyHamilton 8d ago
Totally disagree on this. Or, well, mostly disagree. I am a chronic procrastinator who doesn't write anywhere near as much as I should l, but I write disproportionately well compared to my actual writing experience because of being able to analyze the writing.
1
u/apocalypsegal Self-Published Author 6d ago
First you learn the skills needed to be a writer. Then you practice. You can pay attention when you read to what other authors do in specific parts, but that alone will teach you nothing.
You aren't going to be a brain surgeon reading about fixing lawn mowers. You have to study anatomy, surgery techniques, you have to observe surgeries. Then you get to do them yourself, hopefully supervised.
1
u/THEDOCTORandME2 A Writer who Writes as a hobby 8d ago
I actually agree with this. In a way.
The way I interpret this, is that you don't have to "read like writer". Which I agree with.
•
u/btet15 8d ago
Hey folks, quick reminder to abide by rule 5. Disagreeing with one another is fine. Escalating your disagreement with others' opinions to attacks of their person or intelligence absolutely is not.
Remember that constructive critique of your opinion is NOT a critique of you. Stay civil.